The Cochrane Skin Group

Williams, Hywel C; Adetugbo, Kayode; Po, A. Li Wan; Naldi, Luigi; Diepgen, Thomas L.; Murrell, Dédée F.

doi:10.1001/archderm.134.12.1620

Cited by 34 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This consideration has led to the formulation of a standard for the reporting of RCTs (Table 1), embodied in the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement of 1996. 15 The Cochrane Skin Group 16 was recently formed as part of the evidence-based health care movement. It pre-…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Well Are Randomized Controlled Trials Reported in the Dermatology Literature?

Adetugbo¹,

Williams²

2000

Arch Dermatol

Self Cite

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Well Are Randomized Controlled Trials Reported in the Dermatology Literature?

Adetugbo¹,

Williams²

2000

Arch Dermatol

Self Cite

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Es wurden ausschließlich dermatologische Studien mit pharmakoökonomischem Inhalt oder einer wirtschaftlichen Komponente (sog. "Piggy-back-Studien") berücksich-tigt, Einzelfallbeschreibungen und -evaluationen blieben unberücksichtigt [19].…”

Section: Materials Und Methodenunclassified

Gesundheitsökonomische Studien in der Dermatologie

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because of reduced resources for health care, provision of modern effective dermatologic care for patients with German public health insurances has become more and more difficult. This survey is designed to aid in the assessment of published health economic studies as well as encourage participation in health economic evaluations. These studies should analyze and optimize the allocation of the available resources. Four main approaches can be used to calculate the incidental expenses; they differ in their methods of evaluation and assessment of health services. They all offer methods to calculate the anticipated costs and consequences. The methods include cost minimization analysis (CMA), cost effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost utility analysis (CUA) or cost benefit analysis (CBA). Many subgroups also exist. Important criteria for the evaluation of health economic trials and hints for the publication of the results are provided on the basis of the recommendations for health economic evaluations.

show abstract

“…[8] Cochrane reviewers use and refer to a prepublished protocol to describe precisely how they will search, appraise, and synthesize data concerning a specific clinical question. Such an explicit structure and methodology means that another researcher could replicate the review if necessary, even down to the level of planned subgroup analysis.…”

Section: Advantages Of Ebdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengths and limitations of evidence-based dermatology

Williams

2014

Indian J Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need for understanding and reflecting on evidence-based dermatology (EBD) has never been greater given the exponential growth of new external evidence to inform clinical practice. Like any other branch of medicine, dermatologists need to acquire new skills in constructing answerable questions, efficiently searching electronic bibliographic databases, and critically appraising different types of studies. Secondary summaries of evidence in the form of systematic reviews (SR), that is, reviews that are conducted in a systematic, unbiased and explicit manner, reside at the top of the evidence hierarchy, because they are less prone to bias than traditional expert reviews. In addition to providing summaries of the best external evidence, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are also powerful ways of identifying research gaps and ultimately setting the agenda of future clinical research in dermatology. But like any paradigm, EBD can have its limitations. Wrong application, misuse and overuse of EBD can have serious consequences. For example, mindless pooling together of data from dissimilar studies in a meta-analysis may render it a form of reductionism that does not make any sense. Similarly, even highly protocolised study designs such as SRs and RCTs are still susceptible to some degree of dishonesty and bias. Over-reliance on randomized controlled trials (RCT) may be inappropriate, as RCTs are not a good source for picking up rare but important adverse effects such as lupus syndrome with minocycline. A common criticism leveled against SRs is that these frequently conclude that there is lack of sufficient evidence to inform current clinical practice, but arguably, such a perception is grounded more on the interpretation of the SRs than anything else. The apparent absence of evidence should not paralyze the dermatologist to adopt a state of therapeutic nihilism. Poor primary data and an SR based on evidence that is not up-to-date are also limitations that can only improve with better primary studies and updated reviews such as those done by the Cochrane Collaboration. Most dermatologists are interested in integrating the best external evidence with the care of individual patients and have been practicing good EBD without realizing it.

show abstract

The Cochrane Skin Group

Cited by 34 publications

References 33 publications

How Well Are Randomized Controlled Trials Reported in the Dermatology Literature?

How Well Are Randomized Controlled Trials Reported in the Dermatology Literature?

Gesundheitsökonomische Studien in der Dermatologie

Strengths and limitations of evidence-based dermatology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About