Evidence-Based Practice

Evidence-Based Practice

Evidence-Based Practice

Introduction

Evidence-based practice joined evidence-based medicine with the introduction of psychiatric journals in 1998. The ideas of evidence-based practice are old, but its assumptions are sound, the reservations are based on how its tenants are promoted. There is only one evidence accepted about treatment which is derived from randomized controlled trails. In evidence-based practice, the role of therapist as a doctor is being undermined, and the social aspects and psychological effects of medicine are neglected by EDP (Black 1998, 32). The introduction of evidence-based practice gives a definite impression, that it is a development of up to date scientific facts about the base patient treatment. Hard evidence-based on the criteria of evidence-based practice has been there for many years, and since world war, psychiatrists acted on several key RCTs findings.

One of these theories was based on the insulin therapy. Insulin therapy coma which became a choice for schizophrenia during the 1933 in Vienna, the evidence from it was never convincing. After RCT, it proved that there were no tangible benefits over barbiturates for inducing coma and it was quickly abandoned. Psychiatrists never acted on these results and trials. Their broad conclusions only provided the preliminary base for the modern treatment of acute schizophrenia and depressive illness. Evidence-based practice is described as a reliable and thorough use of best evidence and care for individual patients and they speak the need to balance the expertise of clinical procedure with evidence that neither alone is sufficient. Evidence-based practice is acceptable on which treatments are based essentially and derived from Meta analyses or RCTs. This approach of other types of evidence available from enquiry of naturalistic, material case and sources of evidence for some of the doctors is too rigid a view so it limits the evidence.

Discussion

Before moving further in the context of the paper we intend to review the resources in order to develop an effective and efficient understanding of the subject. Following are a review of the resources:

Source

Type of Resource

general information, filtered, or unfiltered

Source appropriate or inappropriate

Yes or No and justify your answer with evidence

Type of Research

primary research evidence, evidence summary, evidence-based guideline, or none of these

American Academy of Paediatrics and American Academy of Family Physicians. Clinical practice guideline: Diagnosis and management of acute otitis media.

(AAP/AAFP, 2004)

Filtered

Yes. This article is an evidence-based clinical practice

guideline which has provided suggestions to clinicians' primary care

to manage the children under 12 years of age with acute otitis

Media (AOM).

Evidence Based Guideline

Causative pathogens, antibiotic resistance and therapeutic considerations in acute otitis media. Paediatric Infectious Disease Journal.

(Block, 1997)

Unfiltered

Yes. This article discusses about the antibiotics use in AOM

Primary Research Evidence

Ear, nose, and Throat, Current paediatric diagnosis and treatment. In Hay

(Kelley, Friedman & Johnson, 2007)

Unfiltered

No. this provides a detail account of the ear infections, the disease, treatments and the complications. It has few indications of the watchful waiting for treating children with AOM.

Primary Research Evidence

Treatment of acute otitis media in an era of increasing microbial resistance. Paediatric Infectious Disease Journal

(McCracken, 1998)

Filtered

Yes. This article provided the etiologist of the bacterial ...