Reviewing the reviews. How strong is the evidence? How clear are the conclusions?

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this paper were: a) to determine what can be learned from conclusions of systematic reviews about the evidence base of medicine; and b) to determine whether two readers draw similar conclusions from the same review, and whether these match the authors' conclusions. METHODS: Three methodologists (two per review) rated 160 Cochrane systematic reviews (issue 1, 1998) using pre-established conclusion categories. Disagreements were resolved by discussion to arrive at a consensual score for each review. Reviews' authors were asked to use the same categories to designate the intended conclusion. Interrater agreements were calculated. RESULTS: Interrater agreement between two readers was 0.68 and 0.72, and between readers and authors, 0.32. The largest categories assigned by methodologists were "positive effect" (22.5%), "insufficient evidence" (21.3%), and "evidence of no effect" (20.0%). The largest categories assigned by authors were "insufficient evidence" (32.4%), "possibly positive" (28.6%), and "positive effect" (26.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The number of reviews indicating that the modern biomedical interventions show either no effect or insufficient evidence is surprisingly high. Interrater disagreements suggest a surprising degree of subjective interpretation involved in systematic reviews. Where patterns of disagreement emerged between authors and readers, authors tended to be more optimistic in their conclusions than the readers. Policy implications are discussed.

CAM evaluation comes into the mainstream: NIH specialized Centers of research and the University of Maryland Center for Alternative Medicine Research in Arthritis.

In September of 1999 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced the funding of five Specialized Centers of Research in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), bringing the total number of centers being supported to nine. The NIH center grant model provides a tremendous boost to the scientific investigation of CAM, nurturing an emerging field through the support of a step-wise research program of clinical and pre-clinical trials and developmental and feasibility studies; the building of infrastructure; and the training of a new cadre of scientific investigators in the field. This article explains the overall objectives of the NIH Specialized Centers program and focuses on one of the oldest CAM research centers in the USA, exploring some of the challenges faced in conducting CAM research while developing a center, and some of the goals and activities of the center.

The public debate over alternative medicine: the importance of finding a middle ground.

As the use of alternative medical therapies has grown in the United States, so has the controversy surrounding it. Many conventional medicine practitioners and researchers often express strong negative attitudes toward alternative medicine therapies and practitioners. Likewise, many alternative medicine practitioners and activists often express strong negative attitudes toward conventional medicine and its methods. Unfortunately, such highly polarized viewpoints tend to dominate the public debate over alternative medicine in this country, obscuring the empirical evidence. This article discusses the evidence pertaining to some of the major controversies surrounding alternative medicine and why there is a critical need to find a more moderate approach to resolving such controversial issues. A potential model for finding a middle ground in this debate is presented.

Diabetes care for Medicare beneficiaries. Attitudes and behaviors of primary care physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To obtain information related to primary care physician (PCP) attitudes, knowledge, and practice patterns, as well as perceptions about barriers to care and the use of materials to assist in the delivery of diabetes care for elderly patients in the office setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A survey was mailed to a random sample (n = 900) of PCPs (internal medicine, family practice, and general practice physicians and endocrinologists) from the states of Alabama, Iowa, and Maryland who met selection criteria and provided diabetes care to > or = 25 Medicare beneficiaries during calendar year 1993. RESULTS: Respondents provided self-reported information regarding diabetes care for elderly patients. PCP respondents (n = 370) considered blood glucose control to be the most important treatment goal. Most respondents (92%) considered acceptable GHb values to be those < 8%. Blood pressure measurement and foot inspections for the detection of ulcers and infection were the most commonly reported routine procedures performed as part of an office visit. Laboratory tests reported to be frequently ordered included GHb, serum creatinine, and proteinuria tests. Patient nonadherence to the treatment regimen was reported to be the most common barrier to care. The majority of respondents reported using two treatment aids in caring for patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide some evidence that PCP self-reported attitudes, knowledge, and practice patterns in delivering diabetes care for elderly patients in the office setting more closely reflect current recommended practice than reported in previous physician surveys. Opportunities for improvement still exist.

Patient satisfaction with nursing care in hospitals.

Patient satisfaction has become one measure of quality of nursing care. This article reports on two preliminary studies and one major study of the Patient Satisfaction with Nursing Care Questionnaire. This questionnaire includes four general questions related to the patient's satisfaction with the overall stay in the hospital, food provided, and medical and nursing care received and 15 items that measure satisfaction with three dimensions of nursing care: caring about patients (interpersonal), technical skills, and patient education.