Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
EditorialEditorial

Ups and downs of evidence and practice guidelines

Roger Ladouceur
Canadian Family Physician November 2013; 59 (11) 1143;
Roger Ladouceur
MD MSc CCMF FCMF
Roles: ASSOCIATE SCIENTIFIC EDITOR
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Figure

In recent years, have you recommended mattress and pillow covers to parents of young patients with asthma or allergic rhinitis to reduce their exposure to dust mite allergens? If so, you were wrong!

Or have you recommended tympanostomy tubes for your patients with persistent otitis, with the hope of preventing hearing loss or developmental delay? That recommendation was wrong as well!

Or perhaps you have tried lowering glycemic levels in your patients with type 2 diabetes to below a glycated hemoglobin A1c target threshold of 7.0% or tried lowering their blood pressure to below 120 mm Hg? Wrong again!

If we are to believe the findings in “A Decade of Reversal: An Analysis of 146 Contradicted Medical Practices,”1 recently published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, all of these practices are incorrect. Prasad et al analyzed all original articles published in 10 years in one of the biggest medical journals, if not the biggest high-impact journal in the world, ie, the New England Journal of Medicine. These articles were categorized into 1 of 4 designations: replacement was defined as a new practice surpassing an older standard of care; back to the drawing board was defined as a new practice failing to surpass an older standard; reversal was designated when a current medical practice was found to be inferior to a lesser or previous standard; and reaffirmation was defined as an existing medical practice being found to be superior to a lesser or previous standard.

The verdict? Of the 363 articles that tested an existing medical practice, 146 (40.2%) found the practice ineffective compared with a previous standard or its omission (reversal). Incredible!

And yet, it seems that Prasad et al are not the only ones to question established medical practice. In 2005, Ioannidis et al examined original research studies published in 3 important medical journals (New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and Lancet) between 1990 and 2003 that were cited more than 1000 times in the literature.2 They observed that 16% of the studies claiming that an intervention was effective were contradicted by subsequent studies. In Australia, in 2012, more than 150 practices were identified as potentially ineffective or unsafe.3 In England, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence identified more than 800 low-value practices over the past decade.4

These findings are stunning! It is akin to acknowledging that a large part of what we have practised over the past decade was wrong.

How is this possible? Of course, there are those who will say that medicine is an evolving science and that it is natural that what we believe today will be obsolete tomorrow. But to this degree? And at this pace? It is difficult to subscribe to this logic: How can we acknowledge and accept the fact that nearly half of the actions that we are taking today could be wrong? That kind of logic is paradoxical and Kafkaesque.

Surely, there must be another explanation. In my view, the error stems from our interpretation of evidence. Have you noticed how the guidelines that have become the backbone of our medical practice, as scientific and rigorous as they claim to be, are often laden with opinions and interpretations? Let’s consider the most recent recommendations from the Canadian Diabetes Association,5 ranked among the most credible and widely recognized guidelines. The most recent edition, released in April 2013, contains more than 100 grade D, consensus recommendations. This means that these recommendations are based solely on expert opinions and not on scientifically rigorous data (absence of level I, II, or III). So, if 40% of medical practices are reversed within 10 years of appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine, imagine the reversal rate of practices based essentially on expert opinion! It’s not hard to imagine that their reversal rate will be even higher.

With evidence that does not stand the test of time and practice guidelines rife with expert opinions, it’s no wonder that family physicians no longer know what to believe!

Footnotes

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • Cet article se trouve aussi en français à la page 1144.

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Prasad V,
    2. Vandross A,
    3. Toomey C,
    4. Cheung M,
    5. Rho J,
    6. Quinn S,
    7. et al
    . A decade of reversal: an analysis of 146 contradicted medical practices. Mayo Clin Proc 2013;88(8):790-8. Epub 2013 Jul 18.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ioannidis JP
    . Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 2005;294(2):218-28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Elshaug AG,
    2. Watt AM,
    3. Mundy L,
    4. Willis CD
    . Over 150 potentially low-value health care practices: an Australian study. MJA 2012;197(10):556-60.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Garner S,
    2. Littlejohns P
    . Disinvestment from low value clinical interventions: NICEly done? BMJ 2011;343:d4519.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee
    . Canadian Diabetes Association 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Diabetes in Canada. Can J Diabetes 2013;37(Suppl 1):S1-212.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 59 (11)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 59, Issue 11
1 Nov 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Ups and downs of evidence and practice guidelines
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Ups and downs of evidence and practice guidelines
Roger Ladouceur
Canadian Family Physician Nov 2013, 59 (11) 1143;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Ups and downs of evidence and practice guidelines
Roger Ladouceur
Canadian Family Physician Nov 2013, 59 (11) 1143;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Grandeurs et misères des données probantes et des guides de pratique
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Solving the family medicine crisis
  • Résoudre la crise en médecine familiale
  • Pride and learning in reverse
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2025 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire