Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Evidence seems to change frequently
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
Freeman and Sweeney's study on why general practitioners do not
implement evidence seems to share the underlying assumption of so much
that is written on this subject
that evidence is clear cut, and the
only problem is getting practitioners to put it into practice.1 My perception of evidence, however, is that it
is often slippery
at best frequently changing and at worst
contradictory and confusing
and that best evidence is often not very
good. Part of the problem is therefore deciding exactly what to put
into practice.
The findings and interpretation of individual papers, systematic
reviews, meta-analyses, and reviews of systematic reviews and
meta-analyses are regularly debated in the BMJ.
Anticoagulation was one of the clinical areas discussed by the
participants in Freeman and Sweeney's study, but stroke prevention in
atrial fibrillation is controversial. How many general practitioners
who have read the papers on atrial fibrillation in
Read all Rapid Responses