What’s the best route to this happy outcome?
Doctors used to insist “once a C-section, always a C-section.” Today it is standard practice to allow vaginal births after C-section (VBAC) for appropriately selected patients. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has issued a Practice Bulletin to guide obstetricians in determining which patients are appropriate candidates for VBAC.
We frequently hear criticisms of practice guidelines like these. The doctors who write the guidelines are accused of conflict of interest, turf protection, and biased evaluation of the evidence. For those who believe doctors put profits before patients, this should be an eye-opener. It would presumably be in the best financial interests of obstetricians to do as many C-sections as possible, since they can charge more for them than for vaginal births. It would have been easy for the ACOG to put a spin on the data to make repeat C-sections look like a better choice. The fact that they offer VBACs despite their conflict of interest makes me think that their evaluation of the evidence was probably fair and unbiased.
So just how safe is VBAC? What are the pros and cons? What does the evidence say? (more…)
While it is both easy and fun to point out the inadequacies of unscientific modalities such as chiropractic and homeopathy, our goal at Science-Based Medicine is the application of a single standard to all medical practice, even if it stings a bit. We are far from perfect. While I firmly believe that most conventional healthcare professionals are good people who strive to provide the best care possible for their patients, I accept that there is room for improvement and pediatric medicine is certainly no exception.
In fact, one of the characteristics that best distinguishes conventional from so-called alternative medicine is the simple fact that we systematically attempt to recognize and correct our errors on an individual and system wide level. That we evolve in the light of new and better evidence, albeit sluggishly as a rule rather than an exception, allows me to sleep at night. There is no quality control in alternative medicine. There are only shifting trends in the marketing of nonsense to the curious, desperate, and gullible. (more…)
The American Academy of Family Physicians journal American Family Physician (AFP) has a feature called Journal Club that I’ve mentioned before. Three physicians examine a published article, critique it, discuss whether to believe it or not, and put it into perspective. In the September 15 issue the journal club analyzed an article that critiqued the process for developing clinical practice guidelines. It discussed how two reputable organizations, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) looked at the same evidence on lipid screening in children and came to completely different conclusions and recommendations.
The AAP recommends testing children ages 2-10 for hyperlipidemia if they have risk factors for cardiovascular disease or a positive family history. The USPSTF determined that there was insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening. How can a doctor decide which recommendation to follow? (more…)
Should Medical Journals Inform Readers if a Book Reviewer can’t be Objective?
At the end of last week’s post I suggested that book reviewer Donald Abrams and the New England Journal of Medicine had withheld information useful for evaluating Abrams’ review: that he is the Secretary/Treasurer of the Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO), the organization of which Lorenzo Cohen, the first editor of the book that Abrams reviewed,* is President. I also promised to look at material from the book and from the Society’s website in order to discover “data that will allow even the most conventional oncologists to appreciate [the value of ‘integrative’ methods].”
There is little question that Abrams and Cohen know each other, or at least that Abrams couldn’t have been expected to write an entirely objective review of Cohen’s book. Abrams is the Program Chair for the Society’s upcoming 5th International Conference, sponsored by the American Cancer Society. He and Cohen will be sharing the stage for the “Intro/Welcome.” Does it matter that most NEJM readers wouldn’t have learned of this association by reading the review? Probably not, in the case of readers who are well-versed in the misleading language of “CAM.”
I believe that most readers of medical journals are not so sophisticated. Otherwise, how could it have been so easy for “CAM” literature to seep through the usual evaluative filters, not only in medical schools and government but in the editorial boardrooms of prestigious journals? For anyone from the Journal who might be following this thread, Dr. Sampson’s satirical but deadly serious account of “how we did it” is obligatory reading.
Do “Integrative Oncology” Methods have Value?
Now let’s take a look at what Dr. Cohen’s book and the SIO are up to. The book’s introduction and table of contents are available on Amazon.com. The introduction contains the usual, misleading assertions and falsehoods that are ubiquitous in “CAM” promotions. I’ve added a few hyperlinks: