Science-based practice and the speech-language pathologist

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a well established concept in the field of speech-language pathology. However, evidence from research may not be the primary information that practitioners use to guide their treatment selection from the many potential options. There are various alternative therapy procedures that are strongly promoted, so clinicians must become skilled at identifying pseudoscience from science in order to determine if a treatment is legitimate or actually quackery. In order to advance the use of EBP, clinicians can gather practice-based evidence (PBE) by using the scientific method. By adhering to the principles of science, speech-language pathologists can incorporate science-based practice (SBP) into all aspects of their clinical work.     

循证护理在大剂量甲强龙冲击治疗系统性红斑狼疮的应用

目的探讨循证护理方法在系统性红斑狼疮患者中的应用效果。方法成立循证小组,利用信息网络搜索相关文献,并结合临床,选择最佳的护理依据,制订最符合患者需求的护理方案,对2012年10月—2014年10月接受大剂量甲强龙冲击的系统性红斑狼疮患者(实验组)实施循证护理,并与2011年9月—2012年9月实施常规护理的患者比较感染率、胃肠道反应率、电解质变化及睡眠时间。结果采用循证护理后,实验组各项观察指标均显著优于对照组(P0.05)。结论采用循证护理方法规范地对大剂量甲强龙冲击治疗的系统性红斑狼疮患者进行护理,能降低冲击治疗后感染、胃肠道反应及出血、电解质紊乱、睡眠型态紊乱等的发生率。     

Development of an algorithm for the management of cervical lymphadenopathy in children: consensus of the Italian Society of Preventive and Social Pediatrics,jointly with the Italian Society of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and the Italian Society of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

Cervical lymphadenopathy is a common disorder in children due to a wide spectrum of disorders. On the basis of a complete history and physical examination, paediatricians have to select, among the vast majority of children with a benign self-limiting condition, those at risk for other, more complex, diseases requiring laboratory tests, imaging and, finally, tissue sampling. At the same time, they should avoid expensive and invasive examinations when unnecessary. The Italian Society of Preventive and Social Pediatrics, jointly with the Italian Society of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, the Italian Society of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, and other Scientific Societies, issued a National Consensus document, based on the most recent literature findings, including an algorithm for the management of cervical lymphadenopathy in children. Methods: The Consensus Conference method was used, following the Italian National Plan Guidelines. Relevant publications in English were identified through a systematic review of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from their inception through March 21, 2014. Results: Basing on literature results, an algorithm was developed, including several possible clinical scenarios. Situations requiring a watchful waiting strategy, those requiring an empiric antibiotic therapy, and those necessitating a prompt diagnostic workup, considering the risk for a severe underling disease, have been identified. Conclusion: The present algorithm is a practice tool for the management of pediatric cervical lymphadenopathy in the hospital and the ambulatory settings. A multidisciplinary approach is paramount. Further studies are required for its validation in the clinical field.     

The postmodernist war on evidence-based practice

In this paper, we examine the war of words between those who contend that health care practice, including nursing, should primarily be informed by research (the evidence-based practice movement), and those who argue that there should be no restrictions on the sources of knowledge used by practitioners (the postmodernists). We review the postmodernist interventions of Dave Holmes and his colleagues, observing that the postmodernist style to which they adhere, which includes the use of continental philosophy, metaphors, and acerbic delivery, tends to obscure their substantive arguments. The heated nature of some responses to them has tended to have the same effect. However, the substantive arguments are important. Five main postmodernist charges are identified and discussed. The first argument, that the notion of ‘best evidence’ implies a hierarchical and exclusivist approach to knowledge, is persuasive. However, the contention that this hierarchy is maintained by the combined pressures of capitalism and vested interests within academia and the health services, is less well founded. Nevertheless, postmodernist contentions that the hierarchy embraced by the evidence-based practice movement damages health care because it excludes other forms of evidence that are needed to understand the complexity of care, it marginalizes important aspects of clinical knowledge, and it fails to take account of individuals or their experience, are all seen to be of some merit. However, we do not share the postmodernist conclusion that this adds up to a fascist order. Instead, we characterize evidence-based practice as a necessary but not sufficient component of health care knowledge.     

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2020

In a time of rapidly shifting evidence-based medicine, it is challenging to stay informed of research that modifies clinical practice. To enhance knowledge of practice-changing literature, a group of 7 internists reviewed titles and abstracts in 7 internal medicine journals with the highest impact factors and relevance to outpatient general internal medicine. Coronavirus disease-19 research was purposely excluded to highlight practice changes beyond the pandemic. New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), JAMA Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine were reviewed. The following collections of article synopses and databases were also reviewed: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on relevance to outpatient internal medicine, impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Clusters of articles pertaining to the same topic were considered together. In total, 7 practice-changing articles were included.     

Evidence‐Based Practice in a Global Context

This commentary examines how the adoption of benchmarking can promote the internationalization of evidence‐based practice. Given the increasing evidence documenting the role of culture and context in the shaping of experiences and expressions of distress, as well as influencing attitudes and conceptions of mental health services, benchmarking may not represent the best approach to addressing global public health agendas. A brief overview of the sequential approach to developing, evaluating, and disseminating treatments in novel cultural contexts is presented, in which benchmarking can play an important, albeit secondary role. It is argued that in a global context, benchmarking's role may better function to promote dissemination within particular contexts, rather than between them.