Special article
Postulates of evidence-based medicine have transformed into myths
Los principios de la medicina basada en evidencias convertidos en mitos
Fradis Gil-Olivaresa,b,1, Carlos Alva-Diazc,d,1, Isabel Pinedo-Torresc,e, Niels Pacheco-Barriose, Karina Mayra Aliaga Llerenab, Mariela Huerta-Rosarioe,f,
Corresponding author
a Asociación de Calidad en Salud del Perú (ASOCALP), Lima, Perú
b Unidad de Guías de Práctica Clínica, Auna Ideas, Lima, Perú
c Grupo de Investigación Neurociencia, Efectividad Clínica y Salud Pública, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Perú
d Servicio de Neurología, Departamento de Medicina y Oficina de Apoyo a la Docencia e Investigación (OADI), Hospital Daniel Alcides Carrión, Callao, Perú
e Red de Eficacia Clínica y sanitaria REDECS, Lima, Perú
f Universidad Señor de Sipán, Chiclayo, Perú
Read
487
Timeswas read the article
187
Total PDF
300
Total HTML
Share statistics
array:23 [ "pii" => "S1575181324000020" "issn" => "15751813" "doi" => "10.1016/j.edumed.2024.100887" "estado" => "S300" "fechaPublicacion" => "2024-05-01" "aid" => "100887" "copyright" => "The Authors" "copyrightAnyo" => "2024" "documento" => "article" "crossmark" => 1 "subdocumento" => "fla" "cita" => "Educación Médica. 2024;25:" "abierto" => array:3 [ "ES" => false "ES2" => false "LATM" => false ] "gratuito" => false "lecturas" => array:1 [ "total" => 0 ] "itemSiguiente" => array:18 [ "pii" => "S1575181324000147" "issn" => "15751813" "doi" => "10.1016/j.edumed.2024.100899" "estado" => "S300" "fechaPublicacion" => "2024-05-01" "aid" => "100899" "copyright" => "The Author(s)" "documento" => "article" "crossmark" => 1 "subdocumento" => "fla" "cita" => "Educación Médica. 2024;25:" "abierto" => array:3 [ "ES" => false "ES2" => false "LATM" => false ] "gratuito" => false "lecturas" => array:1 [ "total" => 0 ] "es" => array:11 [ "idiomaDefecto" => true "cabecera" => "<span class="elsevierStyleTextfn">Artículo especial</span>" "titulo" => "Vigencia de las tradiciones pedagógicas: una dialéctica entre paradigmas de la educación y la pedagogía con la formación médica contemporánea" "tienePdf" => "es" "tieneTextoCompleto" => "es" "tieneResumen" => array:2 [ 0 => "es" 1 => "en" ] "titulosAlternativos" => array:1 [ "en" => array:1 [ "titulo" => "Validity of pedagogical traditions: A dialectic between education and pedagogy paradigms with contemporary medical training" ] ] "contieneResumen" => array:2 [ "es" => true "en" => true ] "contieneTextoCompleto" => array:1 [ "es" => true ] "contienePdf" => array:1 [ "es" => true ] "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "autoresLista" => "Diego Alejandro Vivas" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "Diego Alejandro" "apellidos" => "Vivas" ] ] ] ] ] "idiomaDefecto" => "es" "EPUB" => "https://multimedia.elsevier.es/PublicationsMultimediaV1/item/epub/S1575181324000147?idApp=UINPBA00004N" "url" => "/15751813/0000002500000003/v1_202406241746/S1575181324000147/v1_202406241746/es/main.assets" ] "itemAnterior" => array:18 [ "pii" => "S1575181324000214" "issn" => "15751813" "doi" => "10.1016/j.edumed.2024.100906" "estado" => "S300" "fechaPublicacion" => "2024-05-01" "aid" => "100906" "copyright" => "The Author(s)" "documento" => "article" "crossmark" => 1 "subdocumento" => "rev" "cita" => "Educación Médica. 2024;25:" "abierto" => array:3 [ "ES" => false "ES2" => false "LATM" => false ] "gratuito" => false "lecturas" => array:1 [ "total" => 0 ] "en" => array:12 [ "idiomaDefecto" => true "cabecera" => "<span class="elsevierStyleTextfn">Review article</span>" "titulo" => "Exam blueprinting as a tool to overcome principal validity threats: A scoping review" "tienePdf" => "en" "tieneTextoCompleto" => "en" "tieneResumen" => array:2 [ 0 => "en" 1 => "es" ] "titulosAlternativos" => array:1 [ "es" => array:1 [ "titulo" => "Examen Blueprinting como una herramienta para superar las principales amenazas de validez: una revisión de alcance" ] ] "contieneResumen" => array:2 [ "en" => true "es" => true ] "contieneTextoCompleto" => array:1 [ "en" => true ] "contienePdf" => array:1 [ "en" => true ] "resumenGrafico" => array:2 [ "original" => 0 "multimedia" => array:8 [ "identificador" => "f0005" "etiqueta" => "Fig. 1" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIAFIGURA" "mostrarFloat" => true "mostrarDisplay" => false "figura" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "imagen" => "gr1.jpeg" "Alto" => 2004 "Ancho" => 1621 "Tamanyo" => 243822 ] ] "detalles" => array:1 [ 0 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "al0005" "detalle" => "Fig. " "rol" => "short" ] ] "descripcion" => array:1 [ "en" => "<p id="sp0005" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">Flowchart for a review of exam blueprinting as a tool for overcoming principal threats to test validity<span class="elsevierStyleBold">.</span>*</p> <p id="sp0010" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">*</span> The diagram was created with Covidence (Veritas Health Information, Melbourne, Australia) systematic review software.</p>" ] ] ] "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "autoresLista" => "Hussein Abdellatif, Amira Ebrahim Alsemeh, Tarek Khamis, Mohamed-Rachid Boulassel" "autores" => array:4 [ 0 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "Hussein" "apellidos" => "Abdellatif" ] 1 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "Amira Ebrahim" "apellidos" => "Alsemeh" ] 2 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "Tarek" "apellidos" => "Khamis" ] 3 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "Mohamed-Rachid" "apellidos" => "Boulassel" ] ] ] ] ] "idiomaDefecto" => "en" "EPUB" => "https://multimedia.elsevier.es/PublicationsMultimediaV1/item/epub/S1575181324000214?idApp=UINPBA00004N" "url" => "/15751813/0000002500000003/v1_202406241746/S1575181324000214/v1_202406241746/en/main.assets" ] "en" => array:19 [ "idiomaDefecto" => true "cabecera" => "<span class="elsevierStyleTextfn">Special article</span>" "titulo" => "Postulates of evidence-based medicine have transformed into myths" "tieneTextoCompleto" => true "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "autoresLista" => "Fradis Gil-Olivares, Carlos Alva-Diaz, Isabel Pinedo-Torres, Niels Pacheco-Barrios, Karina Mayra Aliaga Llerena, Mariela Huerta-Rosario" "autores" => array:6 [ 0 => array:3 [ "nombre" => "Fradis" "apellidos" => "Gil-Olivares" "referencia" => array:3 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">a</span>" "identificador" => "af0005" ] 1 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">b</span>" "identificador" => "af0010" ] 2 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">1</span>" "identificador" => "fn0005" ] ] ] 1 => array:3 [ "nombre" => "Carlos" "apellidos" => "Alva-Diaz" "referencia" => array:3 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">c</span>" "identificador" => "af0015" ] 1 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">d</span>" "identificador" => "af0020" ] 2 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">1</span>" "identificador" => "fn0005" ] ] ] 2 => array:3 [ "nombre" => "Isabel" "apellidos" => "Pinedo-Torres" "referencia" => array:2 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">c</span>" "identificador" => "af0015" ] 1 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">e</span>" "identificador" => "af0025" ] ] ] 3 => array:3 [ "nombre" => "Niels" "apellidos" => "Pacheco-Barrios" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">e</span>" "identificador" => "af0025" ] ] ] 4 => array:3 [ "nombre" => "Karina Mayra Aliaga" "apellidos" => "Llerena" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">b</span>" "identificador" => "af0010" ] ] ] 5 => array:4 [ "nombre" => "Mariela" "apellidos" => "Huerta-Rosario" "email" => array:1 [ 0 => "huertamari@crece.uss.edu.pe" ] "referencia" => array:3 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">e</span>" "identificador" => "af0025" ] 1 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">f</span>" "identificador" => "af0030" ] 2 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">*</span>" "identificador" => "cr0005" ] ] ] ] "afiliaciones" => array:6 [ 0 => array:3 [ "entidad" => "Asociación de Calidad en Salud del Perú (ASOCALP), Lima, Perú" "etiqueta" => "a" "identificador" => "af0005" ] 1 => array:3 [ "entidad" => "Unidad de Guías de Práctica Clínica, Auna Ideas, Lima, Perú" "etiqueta" => "b" "identificador" => "af0010" ] 2 => array:3 [ "entidad" => "Grupo de Investigación Neurociencia, Efectividad Clínica y Salud Pública, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Perú" "etiqueta" => "c" "identificador" => "af0015" ] 3 => array:3 [ "entidad" => "Servicio de Neurología, Departamento de Medicina y Oficina de Apoyo a la Docencia e Investigación (OADI), Hospital Daniel Alcides Carrión, Callao, Perú" "etiqueta" => "d" "identificador" => "af0020" ] 4 => array:3 [ "entidad" => "Red de Eficacia Clínica y sanitaria REDECS, Lima, Perú" "etiqueta" => "e" "identificador" => "af0025" ] 5 => array:3 [ "entidad" => "Universidad Señor de Sipán, Chiclayo, Perú" "etiqueta" => "f" "identificador" => "af0030" ] ] "correspondencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "cr0005" "etiqueta" => "⁎" "correspondencia" => "Corresponding author at: KM 5 Carretera a Pimentel, Chiclayo, Perú." ] ] ] ] "titulosAlternativos" => array:1 [ "es" => array:1 [ "titulo" => "Los principios de la medicina basada en evidencias convertidos en mitos" ] ] "resumenGrafico" => array:2 [ "original" => 0 "multimedia" => array:8 [ "identificador" => "f0005" "etiqueta" => "Fig. 1" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIAFIGURA" "mostrarFloat" => true "mostrarDisplay" => false "figura" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "imagen" => "gr1.jpeg" "Alto" => 1489 "Ancho" => 2378 "Tamanyo" => 210673 ] ] "detalles" => array:1 [ 0 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "al0005" "detalle" => "Fig. " "rol" => "short" ] ] "descripcion" => array:1 [ "en" => "<p id="sp0005" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">Evolution of EBM principles. Based on Guyatt G RD, Meade MO, Cook DJ. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: Essentials of Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guyatton 2nd edition and 3rd edition.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0070"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">14</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0080"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">16</span></a> EBM: evidence-based medicine.</p>" ] ] ] "textoCompleto" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSections"><span id="s0005" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="st0025">Introduction</span><p id="p0045" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">There is increasing demand that medical practices be based on reproducible and ethically obtained scientific evidence. The evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been a milestone in the systematization of medical knowledge and in seeking strategies to make better clinical and health decisions.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0005"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">1</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0010"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">2</span></a></p><p id="p0050" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Like any theoretical body, EBM presents principles from which we deduce postulates that must be contrasted with current scientific advances. However, the initial focus of these postulates is being questioned or misinterpreted when they are put into practice. Although some health professionals consider that these postulates are immovable (turning them into “myths”), they could and should be modified, as in any scientific program that aims to remain valid.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0010"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">2</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0015"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">3</span></a></p><p id="p0055" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The EBM principles proposed by Guyatt et al. are: (1) The “EBM is a systematic summary of the best available evidence”, (2) “EBM provides guidance to decide the level of confidence in estimates”, and (3) “Evidence is never enough to drive clinical gecision Making” (<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#f0005">Fig. 1</a>).<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0020"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">4</span></a> Out of these principles, postulates have been derived that we consider being contradictory to the theory and practice that currently guides the MBE, which could turn them into myths. Therefore, our objective was to compare the principles and postulates of the EBM with the results of current research to identify any contradictions (myths), and to propose potential solutions.</p><elsevierMultimedia ident="f0005"></elsevierMultimedia></span><span id="s0010" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="st0030">EBM postulates</span><p id="p0060" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">We have identified 4 widely disseminated postulates that have now formed into myths. Applying dialectical logic, we contrast these myths with the principles of the MBE and current evidence, identifying their contradictions (<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#t0005">Table 1</a>).</p><elsevierMultimedia ident="t0005"></elsevierMultimedia><p id="p0065" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">In the thesis (first stage), we present these 4 postulates derived from the principles of the MBE. These postulates are routinely applied in the clinical and/or sanitary field, and for many professionals are unquestionable, so we consider them “myths”.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0025"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">5</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0030"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">6</span></a> In the antithesis (second stage), updated evidence and cases that contrast the postulate were reviewed. Finally, in the synthesis (third stage) we resolve the thesis/antithesis contradiction and we propose an updated proposal of the initial postulate.</p><span id="s0015" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="st0035">Myth 1: Systematic reviews (SR) are at the top of the evidence pyramid</span><p id="p0070" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><ul class="elsevierStyleList" id="l0035"><li class="elsevierStyleListItem" id="li0045"><span class="elsevierStyleLabel">•</span><p id="p0075" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Thesis:</span> SR are at the top of the evidence pyramid because they represent the best scientific evidence to make decisions.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0035"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">7</span></a> They have been incorporated into different classification systems that are still used in the development of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) such as AHA/ASA or UPDKS<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0040"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">8</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0045"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">9</span></a> and consider them as type A, type I, or type 1 evidence. In addition; its conclusions are considered high quality only because they are located at the top of the evidence pyramid due to their greater methodological validity.</p></li><li class="elsevierStyleListItem" id="li0050"><span class="elsevierStyleLabel">•</span><p id="p0080" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Antithesis:</span> SRs (with or without a meta-analysis) are a set of secondary research designs that synthesizes the results of primary studies, such as RCTs (randomized control trials) and diagnostic test studies.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0050"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">10</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0055"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">11</span></a> They allow drawing quantitative or qualitative conclusions from a set of primary studies. Confidence in their estimates and conclusions depends on the quality of the primary studies incorporated and the rigor with they are prepared.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0060"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">12</span></a> An SR on an intervention, although rigorously developed, whose estimates indicate more benefit than risk could yield low or very low quality conclusions, due to the low validity, reliability, directionality, and/or precision of the primary studies. The conclusions would not be sufficient to recommend such an intervention but to identify knowledge gaps where more and better research is needed.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0065"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">13</span></a></p></li><li class="elsevierStyleListItem" id="li0055"><span class="elsevierStyleLabel">•</span><p id="p0085" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Synthesis:</span> Murad proposes that SRs synthesize the best scientific evidence available from the different types of studies. But they are not necessarily the best evidence to guide decisions. Moreover, they should not be part of the pyramid of evidence or considered the top, instead they should be understood as a magnifying glass that evaluate, through a systematic search, the quality of the studies found and synthesized (quantitative or qualitative) the evidence to issue conclusions that can then be used in making the best health decisions, as happens when making recommendations following GRADE’s “Evidence to Decision (EtD)”.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0070"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">14</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0075"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">15</span></a></p></li></ul></p></span><span id="s0020" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="st0040">Myth 2: RCTs are the best type of evidence</span><p id="p0090" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><ul class="elsevierStyleList" id="l0040"><li class="elsevierStyleListItem" id="li0060"><span class="elsevierStyleLabel">•</span><p id="p0095" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Thesis:</span> Within this point, we identify 2 related postulates:</p></li><li class="elsevierStyleListItem" id="li0065"><span class="elsevierStyleLabel">-</span><p id="p0100" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">It has been postulated that RCTs are the gold-standard of research designs in human studies. They have been considered the best available scientific evidence against which other study designs have been compared, sometimes to simulate them and other times to recognize their potential limitations.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0065"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">13</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0080"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">16</span></a></p></li><li class="elsevierStyleListItem" id="li0070"><span class="elsevierStyleLabel">-</span><p id="p0105" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Scientific evidence can be ranked based on research design. In this way, the expert opinion is at the base of the pyramid while the ECAs are usually at the top of the pyramid.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0020"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">4</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0035"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">7</span></a></p></li><li class="elsevierStyleListItem" id="li0075"><span class="elsevierStyleLabel">•</span><p id="p0110" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Antithesis:</span> The second principle of the EBM: “EBM provides guidance to decide the level of confidence in estimates” indicates that the hierarchy of evidence is based on the evaluation of the biases that could contain. For a question about the therapeutic efficacy of an intervention, RCTs are better compared with observational studies.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0085"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">17</span></a> However, not all the questions that need to be answered are about therapeutic efficacy. There are questions about risk factors, screening, diagnosis, prognosis, burden of a disease, quality of services, and efficiency. These questions require different designs other than RCTs, such as observational studies for incidence or prevalence, risk factors or prognosis; diagnostic test studies to establish diagnostic accuracy or precision; qualitative studies for quality of services; and cost-effectiveness studies for the efficiency of an intervention (<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#t0010">Table 2</a>).<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0090"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">18</span></a></p><elsevierMultimedia ident="t0010"></elsevierMultimedia></li><li class="elsevierStyleListItem" id="li0080"><span class="elsevierStyleLabel">•</span><p id="p0115" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Synthesis</span>: Each study design has its own features and utility. Therefore, establishing a hierarchy based on design is not realistic or useful for decision-making if the different biases that could be contained in the research are not taken into account. When looking for evidence to solve a problem, the study design will be only one of several aspects to consider.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0045"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">9</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0095"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">19</span></a> When faced with a problem of efficacy, ECAs will be preferred to observational; and for a problem of frequency or impact of a disease, observational studies will be most appropriate.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0100"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">20</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0105"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">21</span></a> The confidence of their estimates will depend on the evaluation of their biases.</p></li></ul></p></span><span id="s0025" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="st0045">Myth 3: Expert opinion (EO) is a type of scientific evidence located at the bottom of the evidence pyramid</span><p id="p0120" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><ul class="elsevierStyleList" id="l0045"><li class="elsevierStyleListItem" id="li0085"><span class="elsevierStyleLabel">•</span><p id="p0125" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Thesis:</span> OE is still considered as a type of evidence located at the base of the pyramid of evidence, and in the absence of higher evidence this can and should be used.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0110"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">22</span></a></p></li><li class="elsevierStyleListItem" id="li0090"><span class="elsevierStyleLabel">•</span><p id="p0130" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Antithesis:</span> EO should not be considered a type of scientific evidence if it is not part of a validated process. Therapeutic decisions not based on scientific evidence, present a greater risk of error and bias.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0070"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">14</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0115"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">23</span></a></p></li><li class="elsevierStyleListItem" id="li0095"><span class="elsevierStyleLabel">•</span><p id="p0135" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Synthesis:</span> EO is not a type of scientific evidence. However, the experience of a health professional can be transferred to scientific evidence through validated techniques such as consensus, surveys, or interviews. In addition, it can serve as an input to generate recommendations or make decisions in scenarios where there is no scientific evidence or evidence is limited.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0120"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">24</span></a></p></li></ul></p></span><span id="s0030" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="st0050">Myth 4: To make health decisions we should only use scientific publications</span><p id="p0140" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><ul class="elsevierStyleList" id="l0050"><li class="elsevierStyleListItem" id="li2100"><span class="elsevierStyleLabel">•</span><p id="p2145" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Thesis:</span> Scientific evidence makes rigorous use of the scientific method whose process culminates in a scientific publication. Therefore, since its origins EBM have proposed using the best available evidence, that is scientific publications.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0125"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">25</span></a></p></li><li class="elsevierStyleListItem" id="li0100"><span class="elsevierStyleLabel">•</span><p id="p0145" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Antithesis:</span> Sacket postulated that the “MBE means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best external clinical evidence<span class="elsevierStyleItalic">”.</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0010"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">2</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0020"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">4</span></a> Currently, the third principle of the MBE proposes that “evidence is never enough to drive clinical decision-making”. This postulate mentions that it is necessary to incorporate multiple criteria that complement the scientific evidence and that they must be considered when making a health decision.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0110"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">22</span></a></p></li><li class="elsevierStyleListItem" id="li0105"><span class="elsevierStyleLabel">•</span><p id="p0150" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Synthesis:</span> The EBM consists of the integration of the best-available scientific evidence with the clinical experience and values/preferences of the patients in whom the intervention will be applied.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0010"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">2</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0130"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">26</span></a> Therefore, applying an MBE approach does not mean using only and directly the results of scientific publications but that decisions should be developed in 2 moments: (1) the first, where the best-available scientific evidence is systematized and (2) the second, where multiple criteria, such as local information on the feasibility, efficiency, and equity of interventions, are integrated to formulate a decision contextualized to the scenario where such decisions will be applied.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0110"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">22</span></a></p></li></ul></p></span></span><span id="s0035" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="st0055">Conclusion</span><p id="p0155" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">We propose 4 new postulates for better use of scientific evidence in medical decision-making: (1) RS synthesizes available scientific evidence methodologically but is no better than primary studies. (2) Each problem in the field of health care corresponds to a suitable type of research to generate a solution. (3) EO is not a type of scientific evidence, but could be transferred to the scientific evidence through its methodological systematization. (4) The decision-making proposed by the MBE follows 2 moments: first, the synthesis of the best-available scientific evidence and, second, the formulation of decisions through the consideration of multiple criteria.</p></span><span id="s0040" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="st0060">Ethical approval</span><p id="p0160" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Ethical approval was not required for this review.</p></span><span id="s0045" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="st0065">Statement of informed consent</span><p id="p0165" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">There are no human subjects in this article and informed consent is not applicable.</p></span><span id="s0050" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="st0070">Funding</span><p id="p0170" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The university of the Lord of Sipán provided support for the publication of this article.</p></span></span>" "textoCompletoSecciones" => array:1 [ "secciones" => array:11 [ 0 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "xres2170437" "titulo" => "Abstract" "secciones" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "identificador" => "as0005" ] ] ] 1 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "xpalclavsec1840440" "titulo" => "Keywords" ] 2 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "xres2170436" "titulo" => "Resumen" "secciones" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "identificador" => "as0010" ] ] ] 3 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "xpalclavsec1840439" "titulo" => "Palabras clave" ] 4 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "s0005" "titulo" => "Introduction" ] 5 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "s0010" "titulo" => "EBM postulates" "secciones" => array:4 [ 0 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "s0015" "titulo" => "Myth 1: Systematic reviews (SR) are at the top of the evidence pyramid" ] 1 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "s0020" "titulo" => "Myth 2: RCTs are the best type of evidence" ] 2 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "s0025" "titulo" => "Myth 3: Expert opinion (EO) is a type of scientific evidence located at the bottom of the evidence pyramid" ] 3 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "s0030" "titulo" => "Myth 4: To make health decisions we should only use scientific publications" ] ] ] 6 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "s0035" "titulo" => "Conclusion" ] 7 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "s0040" "titulo" => "Ethical approval" ] 8 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "s0045" "titulo" => "Statement of informed consent" ] 9 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "s0050" "titulo" => "Funding" ] 10 => array:1 [ "titulo" => "References" ] ] ] "pdfFichero" => "main.pdf" "tienePdf" => true "fechaRecibido" => "2023-08-29" "fechaAceptado" => "2023-12-27" "PalabrasClave" => array:2 [ "en" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "clase" => "keyword" "titulo" => "Keywords" "identificador" => "xpalclavsec1840440" "palabras" => array:3 [ 0 => "Evidence-based medicine" 1 => "Medical philosophy" 2 => "Logic" ] ] ] "es" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "clase" => "keyword" "titulo" => "Palabras clave" "identificador" => "xpalclavsec1840439" "palabras" => array:3 [ 0 => "Medicina basada en la evidencia" 1 => "Filosofía médica" 2 => "Lógica" ] ] ] ] "tieneResumen" => true "resumen" => array:2 [ "en" => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Abstract" "resumen" => "<span id="as0005" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><p id="sp0080" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">“Evidence-based medicine” (EBM) proposes methods, techniques, and instruments for verifying, incorporating, and applying scientific information in individual and public health. However, the principles and postulates of EBM have evolved over time. Our objective was to analyze the principles and postulates of EBM and compare them with current research, to identify possible myths. We conducted a review and analysis of the literature to identify the current principles of EBM and its most disseminated postulates. Subsequently, we compared these postulates with scientific evidence and EBM principles to identify potential myths. We identified 3 current principles of EBM: “EBM is a systematic summary of the best available evidence”, “EBM provides guidance to determine the level of confidence in estimates”, and “Evidence is never enough to drive clinical decision making.” Additionally, we identified 4 widely disseminated postulates: (1) Systematic reviews are at the top of the evidence pyramid, (2) randomized clinical trials are the best type of evidence, (3) expert opinion is a type of scientific evidence, and (4) to make health decisions, we should only use scientific publications. We critically assessed these postulates against scientific evidence and EBM principles, revealing them to be "myths." We identified f4 myths of EBM and proposed solutions to foster a more accurate interpretation and utilization of scientific evidence.</p></span>" ] "es" => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Resumen" "resumen" => "<span id="as0010" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><p id="sp0085" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">La «medicina basada en la evidencia» (MBE) propone métodos, técnicas e instrumentos para verificar, incorporar y utilizar información científica en la salud individual y pública. Sin embargo, sus principios y postulados han cambiado con el tiempo. El objetivo fue identificar y contrastar los principios de la MBE con los mitos de su aplicación usando la lógica dialéctica. Se realizó una revisión literaria para identificar los postulados actuales de la MBE. Confrontamos estos postulados con evidencia científica y principios Mbe para identificar posibles mitos. Identificamos 3 principios actuales de la MBE: 1) «Es un resumen sistemático de la mejor evidencia disponible», 2) «proporciona criterios para decidir el nivel de confianza de las estimaciones», y 3) «la evidencia nunca es suficiente para tomar decisiones clínicas"; además, identificamos 4 postulados ampliamente difundidos: 1) las revisiones sistemáticas están en la cúspide de la pirámide de evidencia, 2) los ensayos clínicos aleatorizados son la mejor evidencia, 3) la opinión de los expertos son un tipo de evidencia científica, y 4) para tomar decisiones en materia de salud solo debemos utilizar publicaciones científicas. Estos postulados no se condicen con la evidencia científica y resultaron en 4 «mitos» de la MBE, sobre los cuales proponemos soluciones para lograr una mejor interpretación y uso de la evidencia científica.</p></span>" ] ] "NotaPie" => array:1 [ 0 => array:3 [ "etiqueta" => "1" "nota" => "<p class="elsevierStyleNotepara" id="np0005">These authors contributed equally to this work.</p>" "identificador" => "fn0005" ] ] "multimedia" => array:3 [ 0 => array:8 [ "identificador" => "f0005" "etiqueta" => "Fig. 1" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIAFIGURA" "mostrarFloat" => true "mostrarDisplay" => false "figura" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "imagen" => "gr1.jpeg" "Alto" => 1489 "Ancho" => 2378 "Tamanyo" => 210673 ] ] "detalles" => array:1 [ 0 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "al0005" "detalle" => "Fig. " "rol" => "short" ] ] "descripcion" => array:1 [ "en" => "<p id="sp0005" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">Evolution of EBM principles. Based on Guyatt G RD, Meade MO, Cook DJ. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: Essentials of Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guyatton 2nd edition and 3rd edition.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0070"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">14</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0080"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">16</span></a> EBM: evidence-based medicine.</p>" ] ] 1 => array:8 [ "identificador" => "t0005" "etiqueta" => "Table 1" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIATABLA" "mostrarFloat" => true "mostrarDisplay" => false "detalles" => array:1 [ 0 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "al0010" "detalle" => "Table " "rol" => "short" ] ] "tabla" => array:2 [ "leyenda" => "<p id="sp0015" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">SR: systematic reviews. RCT: randomized clinical trials. EO: expert opinion.</p><p id="sp0020" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">1. Li Z, Li Z, Zhao L, Cheng Y, Cheng N, Deng Y. Abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</span>. 2021(8).</p><p id="sp0025" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">2. Robert C, Long GV, Brady B, Dutriaux C, Maio M, Mortier L, et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">New England Journal of Medicine</span>. 2015;372(4):320-30.</p><p id="sp0030" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">3. O'Keeffe LM, Taylor G, Huxley RR, Mitchell P, Woodward M, Peters SAE. Smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer in women and men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">BMJ Open.</span> 2018;8(10):e021611.</p><p id="sp0035" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">4. Wynder EL, Graham EA. Tobacco smoking as a possible etiologic factor in bronchiogenic carcinoma: a study of six hundred and eighty-four proved cases. <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">Journal of the American Medical Association</span>. 1950;143(4):329-36.</p><p id="sp0040" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">5. Brazzelli M, Sandercock PA, Chappell FM, Celani MG, Righetti E, Arestis N, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography for detection of acute vascular lesions in patients presenting with stroke symptoms. 2009(4).</p><p id="sp0045" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">6. Sequeiros-Chirinos JM, Alva-Díaz CA, Pacheco-Barrios K, Huaringa-Marcelo J, Huamaní C, Camarena-Flores CE, et al. Diagnóstico y tratamiento de la etapa aguda del accidente cerebrovascular isquémico: Guía de práctica clínica del Seguro Social del Perú (EsSalud). Acta Médica Peruana. 2020;37(1):54-73.</p><p id="sp0050" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">7. Maguiña Vargas C, Gastelo Acosta R, Tequen Bernilla A. El nuevo Coronavirus y la pandemia del Covid-19. Revista Médica Herediana. 2020;31(2):125-31.</p><p id="sp0055" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">8. Lamontagne F, Agoritsas T, Siemieniuk R, Rochwerg B, Bartoszko J, Askie L, et al. A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19. <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">bmj</span>. 2021;372.</p><p id="sp0060" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">9. Organization WH. Living guidance for clinical management of COVID-19: Living guidance, 23 November 2021. World Health Organization; 2021.</p><p id="sp0065" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">10. Mustafa RA, Garcia CAC, Bhatt M, Riva JJ, Vesely S, Wiercioch W, et al. GRADE notes: How to use GRADE when there is “no” evidence? A case study of the expert evidence approach. <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">Journal of Clinical Epidemiology</span>. 2021;137:231-5.</p>" "tablatextoimagen" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "tabla" => array:1 [ 0 => """ <table border="0" frame="\n \t\t\t\t\tvoid\n \t\t\t\t" class=""><thead title="thead"><tr title="table-row"><th class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" scope="col" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">Myth \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t\t\t</th><th class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" scope="col" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">Cases \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t\t\t</th><th class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" scope="col" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">Conclusions \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t\t\t</th></tr></thead><tbody title="tbody"><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">SR are at the top of the evidence pyramid. \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Case 1</span>: An SR that included 6 RCTs (521 participants), aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of abdominal drainage to prevent intraoperative abscesses after an appendectomy in patients with complicated appendicitis compared to not using abdominal drainage. No conclusive results were reported to reduce intraperitoneal abscess, operative site infection, morbidity, mortality, or hospital stay, the authors propose more and better studies to determine the effects of abdominal drainage in this population.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0005"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">1</span></a> \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t"><span class="elsevierStyleItalic">SRs are not always sufficient to achieve conclusive or reliable results.</span> \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">RCTs are the best type of evidence. \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Case 2</span>: Using RCT, nivolumab was found to be safer and more effective when compared with dacarbazine as a treatment for previously untreated BRAF-free melanoma patients since it improved overall progression-free survival.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0010"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">2</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Case 3</span>: A first observational study identified an association between smoking and lung cancer. Subsequent “in vitro” animal and observational studies corroborated this association.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0015"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">3</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0020"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">4</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Case 4</span>: An SR evaluated the usefulness of the different diagnostic test studies to diagnose stroke, it confirmed the utility of CT which is currently widely recommended.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0025"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">5</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0030"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">6</span></a> \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t"><span class="elsevierStyleItalic">There are different useful designs for different types of research problems to solve.</span> \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">EO is a type of scientific evidence located at the bottom of the evidence pyramid. \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Case 5:</span> During the COVID-19 virus pandemic, experts pointed out and recommended drugs such as chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, or ivermectin to be used as part of the therapeutics for this disease.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0135"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">27</span></a> These recommendations were not confirmed after multiple investigations and were no longer recommended.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0035"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">7</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleSup">,</span><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0040"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">8</span></a><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Case 6:</span> Mustafá’s study aimed to describe a method for formulating evidence-based recommendations when there is an absence of published scientific evidence. Through a survey, he collected information from a panel of experts on venous thromboembolism in pediatric patients. The strategy allowed for the formulation of 12 recommendations based on the “experience of experts”, using a systematic and transparent methodology.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0045"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">9</span></a> \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t"><span class="elsevierStyleItalic">EO is not a type of scientific evidence but expert evidence.</span> \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">To make health decisions we should only use scientific publications \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t"><span class="elsevierStyleBold">Case 6:</span> During the process of formulating a recommendation to the PICO question: “In patients with large vessel ischemic stroke, what is the most effective and safe arterial reperfusion therapy?”, a systematic review concluded that mechanical thrombectomy was superior to intravenous thrombolysis, given the high certainty of this estimate, it would be usual to make a strong recommendation, however, the expert panel; including local information, such as limitations for its implementation and high costs, formulated a “conditional” recommendation for the use of thrombectomy.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0050"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">10</span></a> \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t"><span class="elsevierStyleItalic">Scientific evidence is not the sole resource to consider when making decisions.</span> \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr></tbody></table> """ ] "imagenFichero" => array:1 [ 0 => "xTab3575129.png" ] ] ] ] "descripcion" => array:1 [ "en" => "<p id="sp0010" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">Cases not compatible with the postulates.</p>" ] ] 2 => array:8 [ "identificador" => "t0010" "etiqueta" => "Table 2" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIATABLA" "mostrarFloat" => true "mostrarDisplay" => false "detalles" => array:1 [ 0 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "al0015" "detalle" => "Table " "rol" => "short" ] ] "tabla" => array:2 [ "leyenda" => "<p id="sp0075" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">SR: systematic review. RCT, randomized clinical trial. Modified from García CAC & Gaxiola GP.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bb0120"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">24</span></a></p>" "tablatextoimagen" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "tabla" => array:1 [ 0 => """ <table border="0" frame="\n \t\t\t\t\tvoid\n \t\t\t\t" class=""><thead title="thead"><tr title="table-row"><th class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" scope="col" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">Type of question \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t\t\t</th><th class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" scope="col" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">Primary designs \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t\t\t</th><th class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" scope="col" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">Secondary designs \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t\t\t</th></tr></thead><tbody title="tbody"><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Treatment \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">RCT \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td-with-role" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t ; entry_with_role_rowgroup " rowspan="6" align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">For each of the types of questions and designs, an SR could be performed.</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Prevention \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">RCT \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Frequency \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Cohort studyCross-sectional study \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Diagnosis \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Diagnostic test study (cross-sectional or prospective) \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Etiology \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Cohort studyCase–control study \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Prognosis \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Cohort–survival study \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr></tbody></table> """ ] "imagenFichero" => array:1 [ 0 => "xTab3575128.png" ] ] ] ] "descripcion" => array:1 [ "en" => "<p id="sp0070" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">Types of clinical questions and the most appropriate design to produce answers.</p>" ] ] ] "bibliografia" => array:2 [ "titulo" => "References" "seccion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "bs0005" "bibliografiaReferencia" => array:27 [ 0 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0005" "etiqueta" => "1." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Users' guides to the medical literature: I. How to get started" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => true "autores" => array:6 [ 0 => "A.D. Oxman" 1 => "D.L. Sackett" 2 => "G.H. Guyatt" 3 => "G. Browman" 4 => "D. Cook" 5 => "H. Gerstein" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:7 [ "tituloSerie" => "Jama." "fecha" => "1993" "volumen" => "270" "numero" => "17" "paginaInicial" => "2093" "paginaFinal" => "2095" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8411577" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 1 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0010" "etiqueta" => "2." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:5 [ 0 => "D.L. Sackett" 1 => "W.M. Rosenberg" 2 => "J.A. Gray" 3 => "R.B. Haynes" 4 => "W.S. Richardson" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "BMJ (Clin Res Ed)." "fecha" => "1996" "volumen" => "312" "numero" => "7023" "paginaInicial" => "71" "paginaFinal" => "72" ] ] ] ] ] ] 2 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0015" "etiqueta" => "3." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "A categorization and analysis of the criticisms of evidence-based medicine" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:3 [ 0 => "A.M. Cohen" 1 => "P.Z. Stavri" 2 => "W.R. Hersh" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "doi" => "10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2003.11.002" "Revista" => array:7 [ "tituloSerie" => "Int J Med Inform." "fecha" => "2004" "volumen" => "73" "numero" => "1" "paginaInicial" => "35" "paginaFinal" => "43" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15036077" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 3 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0020" "etiqueta" => "4." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: Essentials of Evidence-Based Clinical Practice" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:3 [ 0 => "G.R.D. Guyatt" 1 => "M.O. Meade" 2 => "D.J. Cook" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:2 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Libro" => array:2 [ "fecha" => "2015" "editorial" => "McGraw-Hill Professional" ] ] 1 => array:1 [ "WWW" => array:1 [ "link" => "http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=5a676491cd3f6133875a1396bef45525" ] ] ] ] ] ] 4 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0025" "etiqueta" => "5." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Myths in medicine: How did we get here?" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:3 [ 0 => "A. Dehmoobad Sharifabadi" 1 => "C. Clarkin" 2 => "A. Doja" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "doi" => "10.1111/medu.14024" "Revista" => array:7 [ "tituloSerie" => "Medical Education." "fecha" => "2020" "volumen" => "54" "numero" => "1" "paginaInicial" => "13" "paginaFinal" => "14" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31849099" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 5 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0030" "etiqueta" => "6." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Old myths, new myths: challenging myths in public health" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:3 [ 0 => "S.M. Viehbeck" 1 => "M. Petticrew" 2 => "S. Cummins" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "doi" => "10.2105/AJPH.2014.302433" "Revista" => array:7 [ "tituloSerie" => "Am J Public Health." "fecha" => "2015" "volumen" => "105" "numero" => "4" "paginaInicial" => "665" "paginaFinal" => "669" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25713962" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 6 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0035" "etiqueta" => "7." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Evidence-based practice and the evidence pyramid: a 21st century orthodontic odyssey" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => "P.S. Mulimani" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "Am J Orthodon Dentofacial Orthoped: Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics." "fecha" => "2017" "volumen" => "152" "numero" => "1" "paginaInicial" => "1" "paginaFinal" => "8" ] ] ] ] ] ] 7 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0040" "etiqueta" => "8." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "ACCF/AHA clinical practice guideline methodology summit report: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => true "autores" => array:6 [ 0 => "A.K. Jacobs" 1 => "F.G. Kushner" 2 => "S.M. Ettinger" 3 => "R.A. Guyton" 4 => "J.L. Anderson" 5 => "E.M. Ohman" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "doi" => "10.1161/CIR.0b013e31827e8e5f" "Revista" => array:7 [ "tituloSerie" => "Circulation." "fecha" => "2013" "volumen" => "127" "numero" => "2" "paginaInicial" => "268" "paginaFinal" => "310" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23230312" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0045" "etiqueta" => "9." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Metodología de los tipos y diseños de estudio más frecuentemente utilizados en investigación clínica" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:4 [ 0 => "C. Manterola" 1 => "G. Quiroz" 2 => "P. Salazar" 3 => "N. García" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "Revista Médica Clínica Las Condes." "fecha" => "2019" "volumen" => "30" "numero" => "1" "paginaInicial" => "36" "paginaFinal" => "49" ] ] ] ] ] ] 9 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0050" "etiqueta" => "10." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Manual Cochrane de revisiones sistemáticas de intervenciones" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => "Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano T" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Libro" => array:3 [ "fecha" => "2011" "editorial" => "Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano" "editorialLocalizacion" => "Barcelona" ] ] ] ] ] ] 10 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0055" "etiqueta" => "11." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Five steps to conducting a systematic review" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:4 [ 0 => "K.S. Khan" 1 => "R. Kunz" 2 => "J. Kleijnen" 3 => "G. Antes" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "doi" => "10.1177/014107680309600304" "Revista" => array:7 [ "tituloSerie" => "J R Soc Med." "fecha" => "2003" "volumen" => "96" "numero" => "3" "paginaInicial" => "118" "paginaFinal" => "121" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12612111" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 11 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0060" "etiqueta" => "12." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => true "autores" => array:6 [ 0 => "B.J. Shea" 1 => "B.C. Reeves" 2 => "G. Wells" 3 => "M. Thuku" 4 => "C. Hamel" 5 => "J. Moran" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:3 [ "tituloSerie" => "BMJ." "fecha" => "2017" "volumen" => "358" ] ] ] ] ] ] 12 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0065" "etiqueta" => "13." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "The history and fate of the gold standard" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:2 [ 0 => "D.S. Jones" 1 => "S.H. Podolsky" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "doi" => "10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60742-5" "Revista" => array:7 [ "tituloSerie" => "Lancet." "fecha" => "2015" "volumen" => "385" "numero" => "9977" "paginaInicial" => "1502" "paginaFinal" => "1503" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25933270" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 13 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0070" "etiqueta" => "14." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: clinical practice guidelines" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => true "autores" => array:6 [ 0 => "P. Alonso-Coello" 1 => "A.D. Oxman" 2 => "J. Moberg" 3 => "R. Brignardello-Petersen" 4 => "E.A. Akl" 5 => "M. Davoli" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:4 [ "tituloSerie" => "BMJ (Clin Res Ed)" "fecha" => "2016" "volumen" => "353" "paginaInicial" => "i2089" ] ] ] ] ] ] 14 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0075" "etiqueta" => "15." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "New evidence pyramid" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:4 [ 0 => "M.H. Murad" 1 => "N. Asi" 2 => "M. Alsawas" 3 => "F. Alahdab" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "Evidence-Based Med." "fecha" => "2016" "volumen" => "21" "numero" => "4" "paginaInicial" => "125" "paginaFinal" => "127" ] ] ] ] ] ] 15 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0080" "etiqueta" => "16." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Randomised controlled trials—the gold standard for effectiveness research" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:2 [ 0 => "E. Hariton" 1 => "J.J. Locascio" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:5 [ "tituloSerie" => "BJOG Int J Obste Gynaecol." "fecha" => "2018" "volumen" => "125" "numero" => "13" "paginaInicial" => "1716" ] ] ] ] ] ] 16 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0085" "etiqueta" => "17." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Methodological issues in the design and analyses of neonatal research studies: experience of the NICHD Neonatal Research Network" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => true "autores" => array:6 [ 0 => "A. Das" 1 => "J. Tyson" 2 => "C. Pedroza" 3 => "B. Schmidt" 4 => "M. Gantz" 5 => "D. Wallace" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "doi" => "10.1053/j.semperi.2016.05.005" "Revista" => array:7 [ "tituloSerie" => "Semin Perinatol." "fecha" => "2016" "volumen" => "40" "numero" => "6" "paginaInicial" => "374" "paginaFinal" => "384" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27344192" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 17 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0090" "etiqueta" => "18." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Medicina basada en la evidencia. Fundamentos y su enseñanza en el contexto clínico" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:2 [ 0 => "G. Carlos Alberto Cuello" 1 => "G. Giordano Pérez" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Libro" => array:3 [ "edicion" => "1 ed" "fecha" => "2015" "editorial" => "Editorial Médica Panamericana" ] ] ] ] ] ] 18 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0095" "etiqueta" => "19." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "On framing the research question and choosing the appropriate research design" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:2 [ 0 => "P.S. Parfrey" 1 => "P. Ravani" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:5 [ "tituloSerie" => "Methods Mol Biol (Clifton, N J )." "fecha" => "2021" "volumen" => "2249" "paginaInicial" => "1" "paginaFinal" => "16" ] ] ] ] ] ] 19 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0100" "etiqueta" => "20." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Epidemiology Of Study Design. StatPearls" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:2 [ 0 => "S. Munnangi" 1 => "S.W. Boktor" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Libro" => array:3 [ "fecha" => "2022" "editorial" => "StatPearls Publishing" "editorialLocalizacion" => "Treasure Island (FL)" ] ] ] ] ] ] 20 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0105" "etiqueta" => "21." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => true "autores" => array:6 [ 0 => "X. Zeng" 1 => "Y. Zhang" 2 => "J.S.W. Kwong" 3 => "C. Zhang" 4 => "S. Li" 5 => "F. Sun" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "J Evidence-Based Med." "fecha" => "2015" "volumen" => "8" "numero" => "1" "paginaInicial" => "2" "paginaFinal" => "10" ] ] ] ] ] ] 21 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0110" "etiqueta" => "22." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Letter to the editor: expert evidence vs. expert opinion" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => "H. Overton" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "doi" => "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.008" "Revista" => array:5 [ "tituloSerie" => "J Clin Epidemiol." "fecha" => "2020" "volumen" => "127" "paginaInicial" => "228" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33190723" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 22 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0115" "etiqueta" => "23." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "What does expert opinion in guidelines mean? a meta-epidemiological study" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => true "autores" => array:6 [ 0 => "O.J. Ponce" 1 => "N. Alvarez-Villalobos" 2 => "R. Shah" 3 => "K. Mohammed" 4 => "R.L. Morgan" 5 => "S. Sultan" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "BMJ Evidence-Based Med." "fecha" => "2017" "volumen" => "22" "numero" => "5" "paginaInicial" => "164" "paginaFinal" => "169" ] ] ] ] ] ] 23 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0120" "etiqueta" => "24." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Distinguishing opinion from evidence in guidelines" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:3 [ 0 => "H.J. Schünemann" 1 => "Y. Zhang" 2 => "A.D. Oxman" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:3 [ "tituloSerie" => "bmj." "fecha" => "2019" "paginaInicial" => "366" ] ] ] ] ] ] 24 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0125" "etiqueta" => "25." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Evidence-based medicine: fact or proof?" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => "F. Simon" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "doi" => "10.1016/j.anorl.2020.05.004" "Revista" => array:7 [ "tituloSerie" => "Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis." "fecha" => "2020" "volumen" => "137" "numero" => "5" "paginaInicial" => "361" "paginaFinal" => "362" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32446645" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 25 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0130" "etiqueta" => "26." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => true "autores" => array:6 [ 0 => "G.H. Guyatt" 1 => "A.D. Oxman" 2 => "G.E. Vist" 3 => "R. Kunz" 4 => "Y. Falck-Ytter" 5 => "P. Alonso-Coello" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "BMJ (Clin Res Ed)" "fecha" => "2008" "volumen" => "336" "numero" => "7650" "paginaInicial" => "924" "paginaFinal" => "926" ] ] ] ] ] ] 26 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bb0135" "etiqueta" => "27." "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "El nuevo Coronavirus y la pandemia del Covid-19" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:3 [ 0 => "C. Maguiña Vargas" 1 => "R. Gastelo Acosta" 2 => "A. Tequen Bernilla" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "Revista Médica Herediana." "fecha" => "2020" "volumen" => "31" "numero" => "2" "paginaInicial" => "125" "paginaFinal" => "131" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] "idiomaDefecto" => "en" "url" => "/15751813/0000002500000003/v1_202406241746/S1575181324000020/v1_202406241746/en/main.assets" "Apartado" => array:4 [ "identificador" => "54042" "tipo" => "SECCION" "en" => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Artículos especiales" "idiomaDefecto" => true ] "idiomaDefecto" => "en" ] "PDF" => "https://static.elsevier.es/multimedia/15751813/0000002500000003/v1_202406241746/S1575181324000020/v1_202406241746/en/main.pdf?idApp=UINPBA00004N&text.app=https://www.elsevier.es/" "EPUB" => "https://multimedia.elsevier.es/PublicationsMultimediaV1/item/epub/S1575181324000020?idApp=UINPBA00004N" ]
| Year/Month | Html | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 November | 3 | 4 | 7 |
| 2024 October | 50 | 28 | 78 |
| 2024 September | 38 | 25 | 63 |
| 2024 August | 41 | 28 | 69 |
| 2024 July | 31 | 20 | 51 |
| 2024 June | 32 | 21 | 53 |
| 2024 May | 16 | 16 | 32 |
| 2024 April | 21 | 18 | 39 |
| 2024 March | 48 | 14 | 62 |
| 2024 February | 20 | 13 | 33 |
