The Blind Call for More Research

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jacob Alexander de Ru
{"title":"The Blind Call for More Research","authors":"Jacob Alexander de Ru","doi":"10.1111/jep.70155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>“<i>Fortunately I believe we have not yet gone so far as our friends in the USA where, I am told, some editors of journals will return an article because tests of significance have not been applied,</i>” was written more than half a century ago in one of the most influential papers in medical history [<span>1</span>].</p><p>Unfortunately, recently an editor indeed returned a manuscript stating: “with that said, I urge you to conduct a more formal study of the usefulness of this maneuver in anesthetized patients and report your result.” Though at first glance this might not be a too strange remark, the ‘maneuver’ in this case is just a simple and harmless head-turn.</p><p>A can't oxygenate, can't ventilate, can't intubate situation means that a patient cannot breathe because he/she is under anesthesia, and doesn't get oxygen because the anesthesiologist cannot secure the airway. A can't oxygenate, can't ventilate, can't intubate situation may result in a life-threatening situation thus, a movement as simple as turning the patient's head can be worth every penny.</p><p>During Drug Induced Sleep Endoscopy (DISE), a diagnostic procedure used in case of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), we noticed that turning the head while the patient is under anesthesia can open the airway if it is obstructed by the base of the tongue. The head-turn is a routine part of the procedure as it might be an indicator of the effect of positional therapy for OSAS.</p><p>The ‘instructions for authors’ of the specific journal we had in mind states: ‘ “Freestanding” Letters to the Editor also may discuss matters of general interest to anesthesiologists, without specific linkage to recently published articles,’ and, “Letters to the Editor should be brief (250 to 750 words).”</p><p>Therefore, we wrote a 250 words letter to the editor with the advice for colleagues to try, based on our experience during DISE, a simple head-turn for non-traumatic cases of can't oxygenate, can't ventilate, can't intubate situation [<span>2</span>].</p><p>Even the editor found our “idea interesting and perhaps useful to many anesthesiologists.”</p><p>Unfortunately, since ‘evidence based’ became the magic words in medicine, the focus seems to have shifted from clear and logical thinking to an adopted creed for more and more research. However, in many cases we do not need more research to improve healthcare or to learn easy tips and tricks. To quote Hill concerning tests of significance: “<i>yet there are innumerable situations in which they are totally unnecessary – because the difference is grotesquely obvious, because it is negligible, or because, whether it be formally significant or not, it is too small to be of any practical importance</i> [<span>1</span>].”</p><p>Chalmers, Sackett and Silagy wrote: “<i>when care has such striking effects, (…) carefully controlled research is seldom necessary to identify whether the prescriptions and proscriptions of doctors and other health professionals are more likely to do good than harm</i>” [<span>3</span>]. Even Cochrane stated that formal research is not the only way for “<i>therapies with no backing from RCTs, which are justified by their immediate and obvious effect</i>” [<span>4</span>].</p><p>And everyone has read the parody in the BMJ Christmas 2003 edition concerning parachute use in case of jumping out of a plane [<span>5</span>]. But, though many colleagues have quite a laugh from reading that brilliant paper, they are still unable to translate its conclusion into daily medical practice [<span>6</span>].</p><p>Like the parachute, this ‘maneuver’ is not a maneuver in need of a trial. It is too simple for not trying: you turn the head and you'll either notice that ventilation became possible or it didn't help you at all (and you turn the head back).</p><p>Conducting a more formal study on this subject would be an unworkable situation for a couple of reasons: 1) it would be a waste of time and money; 2) it would be quite impossible to perform an RCT; 3) the outcome would probably be irrelevant.</p><p>Ad 1) Clinical research is subject to increasing regulation by research ethics committees and research and development offices [<span>7</span>]. So, performing a trial, costs an enormous amount of time and money from the research team. It would cost me personally the time and money to study and take the obligated exam to be allowed to do research on humans. Furthermore, I would have to write a protocol that needs to be approved by our Medical Ethical Committee.</p><p>Compliance with current regulations is so complex, time-consuming and therefore prohibitively expensive, that research will become unaffordable except by industry [<span>7</span>]. As stated by Warlow: the resulting bureaucracy, expense and confusion are putting insuperable hurdles in the way of clinical research and clinical care is compromised [<span>7</span>]. Unfortunately, delays can cost lives [<span>7</span>].</p><p>Performing formal research in this case doesn't weigh up against the costs (both the time and the money).</p><p>Ad 2) If a simple letter for educational purpose is not good enough, and we are urged to conduct a formal study, the editor might be thinking about an RCT. However, when do we ask for informed consent for the trial? When we meet the situation of can't oxygenate?</p><p>At what moment in time are we supposed to randomize the patient, when he or she is at 80% oxygenation?</p><p>Of course, one could argue that we better ask for a patient's signature before the operation. But, if a can't oxygenate, can't ventilate, can't intubate situation happens 1 in 20,000 cases, we just need 1,600,000 participants for a trial with 40 patients in both groups.</p><p>Even the apparent solution of asking patients during routine clinical care if their data can be used for research is not as simple as it may seem [<span>3</span>]. So just waiver the consent?</p><p>Furthermore, templates for providing patients with information can result in inappropriate, lengthy and unclear leaflets [<span>7</span>].</p><p>3) If 80% of a cohort would do better, it is a very successful procedure. If the treatment group is significant 20% better than the control group, it is a successful procedure. If it only works in 1 out of twenty patients it is still worth a try for a patient without oxygen.</p><p>Only one specific outcome would be meaningful: the maneuver is unsuccessful in every case. In all other cases the outcome is irrelevant if you compare the situation to the maneuvre. (We probably wouldn't have written the letter if we didn't have some positive experience with it).</p><p>In case doubt still exists on the effectiveness of a maneuver like a head-turn, I would suggest that a colleague who wants to try the maneuver, calculate a rate ratio - as described by Glasziou et al. - for him or herself, and see if the airway that was obstructed opens up during the clinical situation in need of it [<span>8</span>].</p><p>In my opinion, confirmation of the effectiveness, the striking effect, of the maneuver by other authors is more useful than a formal study.</p><p>To conclude, I like to end with a citation from the same masterpiece I started with, because performing formal research on the topic of a head-turn is probably what Hill had in mind when he wrote: “<i>yet too often I suspect we waste a deal of time, we grasp the shadow and lose the substance, we weaken our capacity to interpret data and to take reasonable decisions whatever the value of P.</i>” [<span>1</span>].</p><p>Evidence-Based Medicine, logic.</p><p>The author declares no conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70155","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70155","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Fortunately I believe we have not yet gone so far as our friends in the USA where, I am told, some editors of journals will return an article because tests of significance have not been applied,” was written more than half a century ago in one of the most influential papers in medical history [1].

Unfortunately, recently an editor indeed returned a manuscript stating: “with that said, I urge you to conduct a more formal study of the usefulness of this maneuver in anesthetized patients and report your result.” Though at first glance this might not be a too strange remark, the ‘maneuver’ in this case is just a simple and harmless head-turn.

A can't oxygenate, can't ventilate, can't intubate situation means that a patient cannot breathe because he/she is under anesthesia, and doesn't get oxygen because the anesthesiologist cannot secure the airway. A can't oxygenate, can't ventilate, can't intubate situation may result in a life-threatening situation thus, a movement as simple as turning the patient's head can be worth every penny.

During Drug Induced Sleep Endoscopy (DISE), a diagnostic procedure used in case of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), we noticed that turning the head while the patient is under anesthesia can open the airway if it is obstructed by the base of the tongue. The head-turn is a routine part of the procedure as it might be an indicator of the effect of positional therapy for OSAS.

The ‘instructions for authors’ of the specific journal we had in mind states: ‘ “Freestanding” Letters to the Editor also may discuss matters of general interest to anesthesiologists, without specific linkage to recently published articles,’ and, “Letters to the Editor should be brief (250 to 750 words).”

Therefore, we wrote a 250 words letter to the editor with the advice for colleagues to try, based on our experience during DISE, a simple head-turn for non-traumatic cases of can't oxygenate, can't ventilate, can't intubate situation [2].

Even the editor found our “idea interesting and perhaps useful to many anesthesiologists.”

Unfortunately, since ‘evidence based’ became the magic words in medicine, the focus seems to have shifted from clear and logical thinking to an adopted creed for more and more research. However, in many cases we do not need more research to improve healthcare or to learn easy tips and tricks. To quote Hill concerning tests of significance: “yet there are innumerable situations in which they are totally unnecessary – because the difference is grotesquely obvious, because it is negligible, or because, whether it be formally significant or not, it is too small to be of any practical importance [1].”

Chalmers, Sackett and Silagy wrote: “when care has such striking effects, (…) carefully controlled research is seldom necessary to identify whether the prescriptions and proscriptions of doctors and other health professionals are more likely to do good than harm” [3]. Even Cochrane stated that formal research is not the only way for “therapies with no backing from RCTs, which are justified by their immediate and obvious effect” [4].

And everyone has read the parody in the BMJ Christmas 2003 edition concerning parachute use in case of jumping out of a plane [5]. But, though many colleagues have quite a laugh from reading that brilliant paper, they are still unable to translate its conclusion into daily medical practice [6].

Like the parachute, this ‘maneuver’ is not a maneuver in need of a trial. It is too simple for not trying: you turn the head and you'll either notice that ventilation became possible or it didn't help you at all (and you turn the head back).

Conducting a more formal study on this subject would be an unworkable situation for a couple of reasons: 1) it would be a waste of time and money; 2) it would be quite impossible to perform an RCT; 3) the outcome would probably be irrelevant.

Ad 1) Clinical research is subject to increasing regulation by research ethics committees and research and development offices [7]. So, performing a trial, costs an enormous amount of time and money from the research team. It would cost me personally the time and money to study and take the obligated exam to be allowed to do research on humans. Furthermore, I would have to write a protocol that needs to be approved by our Medical Ethical Committee.

Compliance with current regulations is so complex, time-consuming and therefore prohibitively expensive, that research will become unaffordable except by industry [7]. As stated by Warlow: the resulting bureaucracy, expense and confusion are putting insuperable hurdles in the way of clinical research and clinical care is compromised [7]. Unfortunately, delays can cost lives [7].

Performing formal research in this case doesn't weigh up against the costs (both the time and the money).

Ad 2) If a simple letter for educational purpose is not good enough, and we are urged to conduct a formal study, the editor might be thinking about an RCT. However, when do we ask for informed consent for the trial? When we meet the situation of can't oxygenate?

At what moment in time are we supposed to randomize the patient, when he or she is at 80% oxygenation?

Of course, one could argue that we better ask for a patient's signature before the operation. But, if a can't oxygenate, can't ventilate, can't intubate situation happens 1 in 20,000 cases, we just need 1,600,000 participants for a trial with 40 patients in both groups.

Even the apparent solution of asking patients during routine clinical care if their data can be used for research is not as simple as it may seem [3]. So just waiver the consent?

Furthermore, templates for providing patients with information can result in inappropriate, lengthy and unclear leaflets [7].

3) If 80% of a cohort would do better, it is a very successful procedure. If the treatment group is significant 20% better than the control group, it is a successful procedure. If it only works in 1 out of twenty patients it is still worth a try for a patient without oxygen.

Only one specific outcome would be meaningful: the maneuver is unsuccessful in every case. In all other cases the outcome is irrelevant if you compare the situation to the maneuvre. (We probably wouldn't have written the letter if we didn't have some positive experience with it).

In case doubt still exists on the effectiveness of a maneuver like a head-turn, I would suggest that a colleague who wants to try the maneuver, calculate a rate ratio - as described by Glasziou et al. - for him or herself, and see if the airway that was obstructed opens up during the clinical situation in need of it [8].

In my opinion, confirmation of the effectiveness, the striking effect, of the maneuver by other authors is more useful than a formal study.

To conclude, I like to end with a citation from the same masterpiece I started with, because performing formal research on the topic of a head-turn is probably what Hill had in mind when he wrote: “yet too often I suspect we waste a deal of time, we grasp the shadow and lose the substance, we weaken our capacity to interpret data and to take reasonable decisions whatever the value of P.” [1].

Evidence-Based Medicine, logic.

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

对更多研究的盲目呼吁
“幸运的是,我相信我们还没有像我们在美国的朋友那样走得那么远,在那里,我被告知,一些期刊的编辑会退回一篇文章,因为没有应用显著性测试,”这是半个多世纪前在医学史上最具影响力的论文之一中写的。不幸的是,最近一位编辑确实退回了一份手稿,其中写道:“话虽如此,我敦促你对这种手法在麻醉患者中的有效性进行更正式的研究,并报告你的结果。”虽然乍一看,这可能不是一个太奇怪的话,在这种情况下的“策略”只是一个简单而无害的转过头。不能供氧,不能通气,不能插管的情况意味着病人不能呼吸因为他/她处于麻醉状态,不能获得氧气因为麻醉师不能保证气道安全。一个不能供氧,不能呼吸,不能插管的情况可能会导致危及生命的情况,因此,一个简单的动作,比如转动病人的头,可能是值得的。在药物诱导睡眠内窥镜(DISE)中,一种用于阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停综合征(OSAS)病例的诊断程序,我们注意到,如果患者在麻醉状态下被舌根阻塞,转动头部可以打开气道。转头是手术的常规部分,因为它可能是OSAS体位治疗效果的一个指标。我们所想到的特定期刊的“作者指示”是这样的:“给编辑的“独立”信函也可以讨论麻醉医生普遍感兴趣的问题,而不必与最近发表的文章有具体的联系。”并且,“给编辑的信函应该简短(250到750字)。”因此,我们给编辑写了一封250字的信,根据我们在DISE期间的经验,建议同事们尝试一下,对于不能供氧,不能呼吸,不能插管的非创伤性病例,简单的转头。就连编辑也觉得我们的“想法很有趣,也许对许多麻醉师有用。”不幸的是,自从“以证据为基础”成为医学中的神奇词汇以来,焦点似乎已经从清晰和逻辑思维转移到越来越多的研究中采用的信条。然而,在许多情况下,我们不需要更多的研究来改善医疗保健或学习简单的技巧和诀窍。引用希尔关于显著性检验的话:“然而,在无数的情况下,它们是完全没有必要的——因为差异是非常明显的,因为它是可以忽略不计的,或者因为,不管它是否具有正式的显著性,它都太小了,没有任何实际的重要性。”Chalmers, Sackett和Silagy写道:“当护理具有如此显著的效果时,(…)很少需要仔细控制的研究来确定医生和其他卫生专业人员的处方和禁令是否更有可能利大于弊。”甚至科克伦也表示,正式的研究并不是“没有随机对照试验支持的疗法”的唯一途径,因为它们的直接和明显的效果是合理的。每个人都读过《英国医学杂志》2003年圣诞节版关于跳伞时使用降落伞的恶搞文章。但是,尽管许多同事读了这篇精彩的论文后都笑了,但他们仍然无法将其结论转化为日常的医疗实践。就像降落伞一样,这种“机动”并不需要试验。如果你不去尝试,那就太简单了:你转过头来,你要么会注意到换气变得可能了,要么它根本没有帮助你(然后你转过头来)。对这个问题进行更正式的研究是行不通的,原因如下:1)这会浪费时间和金钱;2)不可能进行随机对照试验;3)结果可能无关紧要。1)临床研究受到研究伦理委员会和研究与发展办公室越来越多的监管。因此,进行一项试验,需要研究团队花费大量的时间和金钱。这将花费我个人的时间和金钱来学习,并参加义务考试,以被允许进行人类研究。此外,我还得写一份方案,需要得到我们医学伦理委员会的批准。遵守现行法规是如此复杂、耗时,因此成本也高得令人望而却步,除非有行业支持,否则研究将变得负担不起。正如沃罗所说:由此产生的官僚主义、费用和混乱给临床研究和临床护理带来了不可逾越的障碍。不幸的是,延误会使生命损失100万美元。在这种情况下进行正式的研究并不能抵消成本(时间和金钱)。(2)如果一个简单的教育目的的信件不够好,我们被敦促进行正式的研究,编辑可能会考虑随机对照试验。 然而,我们什么时候要求试验的知情同意?当我们遇到不能充氧的情况?我们应该在什么时候随机分配病人,当他或她氧合达到80%的时候?当然,有人可能会说,我们最好在手术前征求病人的签名。但是,如果不能供氧,不能呼吸,不能插管的情况发生在2万分之一,我们只需要160万名参与者,两组各40名患者进行试验。即使是在常规临床护理中询问患者他们的数据是否可以用于研究的明显解决方案也不像看起来那么简单。那就放弃同意吗?此外,为患者提供信息的模板可能会导致不恰当、冗长和不清晰的传单。3)如果一个队列中80%的人做得更好,这是一个非常成功的过程。如果治疗组比对照组明显好20%,就是一个成功的手术。如果它只对1 / 20的病人有效,对于缺氧的病人来说,仍然值得一试。只有一个具体的结果是有意义的:这种策略在任何情况下都是不成功的。在所有其他情况下,如果你将情况与行动进行比较,结果是无关紧要的。(如果我们没有一些积极的经历,我们可能不会写这封信。)如果对转头等动作的有效性仍有疑问,我建议想要尝试该动作的同事为自己计算一个比率(如Glasziou等人所描述的),看看被阻塞的气道在临床需要时是否会打开b[8]。在我看来,由其他作者证实这种策略的有效性和显著效果,比正式的研究更有用。最后,我想引用我开始时引用的同一部杰作的一段话作为结束语,因为对“掉头”这一主题进行正式研究,可能正是希尔在写这句话时的想法:“然而,我常常怀疑我们浪费了大量时间,我们抓住了阴影而失去了实质,我们削弱了我们解释数据和做出合理决定的能力,无论p的价值如何。”循证医学,逻辑。作者声明无利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信