LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA explains why “evidence” is not necessary for “evidence-based guidelines”

Byldoadmin

At the last IDSA annual meeting, two poster sessions said that most of the IDSA guideline recommendations were not based on good evidence, but on opinion.    It turns out that while the IDSA gives very strong recommendations, they are not supported by much actual evidence.  See my prior post on this.  In fact, only 15% (you have to be kidding me?) of their “strong recommendations” are supported by “strong evidence”.  So, excuse me, why don’t we just have a King?  Someone who feels entitled and has strong opinions and doesn’t have to justify them with evidence—anyone else feeling uncomfortable with this?  Because in the realm of opinions, “might makes right”.  And, you might be right, but if you don’t have might, then I suppose you “might” just as well sit down and listen.  If that strikes you as arrogance, then we are on the same wave length. 

The timing of the article is just in time for the IDSA review panel decision.  File reasonsthat physicians most need guidance (from the IDSA) when the evidence is weak.Here’s the link to his article. No, physicians most need clinical discretion when the evidence is weak.

In Files world, opinion is awfully important in the arena of “evidence based medicine”.  Or, has evidence based medicine become a marketing tool for medical societies that are strong on opinion and short on evidence? 

You can follow additional comments on Lyme policy at www.lymepolicywonk.org.  You can contact Lorraine Johnson at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: MUS is DUMB—Doctors with Unexplained Medical Beliefs

    You’ve all heard that the latest drum-roll from the rheumatologists at the IDSA hearing was essentially to say that Lyme patients have persistent symptoms and they started off with infection, but now we don’t “believe” in persistence—so what do you call it? How about “medically unexplained symptoms” or MUS for short? All of this seems to regard the real problem with Lyme disease as being what you call it. But patients know the real problem with Lyme disease is how you treat it, how you cure it, how you restore patients to their lives. Disease definitions like MUS are for drug-makers who sell drugs to a market, physicians trying to claim professional turf, and insurers trying to deny treatment reimbursement. They are not for patients. Abraham Lincoln had it right when he said: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? (Answer) Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.” I’m not the only one who finds these acronyms aggravating and unhelpful. A post from the internet nails it:

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Uncle Sam Needs Patients to Get Healthcare Reform Right

    Recently, a group that writes guidelines asked for my input about the role of patients in the development of Evidence Based Medicine guidelines. With universal healthcare now ‘the law of the land’, treatment guidelines have become even more important. Preserving the integrity of the guideline development- process is what matters most. It is essential that patients play a role in the process that can so affect their lives. The question posed to me was why should those developing guidelines involve patients? My response follows.

  • IDSA Lyme disease review panel date set for July 30th! New calendar attached

    The IDSA has set the review panel date for July 30th. None of the other calendar dates have changed. The applications for the panel are due April 17th, document submissions are due April 24th, and selected presenters will be notified by May 15th. If you intend to apply to present or are making a document submission, please let me know and send me a copy of your application or submission at johnson.lorraineb@gmail.com

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Yes, Patients Need a Role in Setting Research Agendas!

    Some of you know that I am honored to be a patient representative for the PCORI patient engagement panel. PCORI stands for Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, an agency created by Congress that funds $500 million dollars of research a year.) What is unique about PCORI is that it funds research that is “patient centered”—research that puts patients at the center of the process. Today, PCORI has released the standards for measuring whether research is truly patient centered. These include involving patients in determining the research questions and the characteristics of study participants, monitoring the conduct of the research, participating in study recruitment and data collection, and the dissemination of study results. The standard calls for reciprocal relationships where researchers and patients learn from each other. It also calls for patient/researcher partnerships and an environment of trust, transparency and honesty. Now, doesn’t that sound like something that Lyme patients need?

  • The FDA and Lyme Disease Testing—FDA is Listening, but Does it Matter?

    In August last year, I blogged about new FDA guidance on laboratory developed tests and how these might restrict access to diagnosis and care for Lyme patients. Many patients with Lyme disease rely on laboratory developed tests, for example, the IGeneX western blot. Since that time, I have met with the FDA twice and LymeDisease.org conducted a survey which drew close to 8,000 responses. The results of that survey were presented to the FDA in our meetings and by Dr. Elizabeth Maloney at the FDA public hearing in January. On January 29th, LDo submitted official public comments to the FDA proposal.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Debate of the Century—Uncle Sam Wants You to Control Health Care Costs

    There is a big debate going on now about how to control health care costs. (Surprised?) Obama has been relying on the Dartmouth Atlas project by John Wennberg to support his assertion that there is enormous waste in the medical system that varies by geographical region that needs to be curtailed. Gardiner Harris, a reporter for the New York Times, has taken issue with this assertion and lobbed criticism at some of the underlying assumptions in the Dartmouth Atlas project. Congress has started looking to control costs by enforcing reductions in higher costs areas like New York. Not so fast says the NY Times. Increased cost may also reflect higher quality care and before we act on data, we need to make sure we have it right. Merrill Goozner, has a good post on Gooznews dissecting the debate. I have followed Wennburg’s work for years and offered my 2 cents on his work and its implications for patients who need to have treatment options available. This debate is at the core of quality healthcare and individualized patient needs. My comments posted on the Goozner site as well as links for all follow the jump.