Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Evidence‐based pediatric allergy practice

Evidence‐based pediatric allergy practice Evidence‐based medicine has been defined as ‘the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. It requires the integration of clinical expertise, external evidence, and patients’ values and expectations' ( 1 ). This clearly is the ideal but what happens when evidence conflicts with the clinical experience of the allergist and, indeed, the expectation and values of the patient? This dilemma is well‐exemplified by recent systematic Cochrane‐based reviews of allergen avoidance and immunotherapy. All our readers will be aware of the widely published and, indeed, criticized Cochrane review of house dust mite control measures for asthma, published in 1998 ( 2 ). The conclusion of that review was that ‘chemical and physical methods for eradication of mites or reducing exposure to mites seemed to be ineffective and cannot be recommended as prophylactic treatment for asthma patients who are sensitive to mites’. Indeed, the paper went so far as to suggest that it was doubtful whether conducting further similar trials would be worthwhile and suggested that new avoidance measures were required. There was a fairly vocal response to this publication, with numerous letters appearing in the British Medical Journal http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Pediatric Allergy and Immunology Wiley

Evidence‐based pediatric allergy practice

Warner, J.O.
Pediatric Allergy and Immunology , Volume 12 (6) – Dec 1, 2001
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/evidence-based-pediatric-allergy-practice-E1EV8H63YY

References (9)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0905-6157
eISSN
1399-3038
DOI
10.1046/j.0905-6157.2001.00001.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Evidence‐based medicine has been defined as ‘the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. It requires the integration of clinical expertise, external evidence, and patients’ values and expectations' ( 1 ). This clearly is the ideal but what happens when evidence conflicts with the clinical experience of the allergist and, indeed, the expectation and values of the patient? This dilemma is well‐exemplified by recent systematic Cochrane‐based reviews of allergen avoidance and immunotherapy. All our readers will be aware of the widely published and, indeed, criticized Cochrane review of house dust mite control measures for asthma, published in 1998 ( 2 ). The conclusion of that review was that ‘chemical and physical methods for eradication of mites or reducing exposure to mites seemed to be ineffective and cannot be recommended as prophylactic treatment for asthma patients who are sensitive to mites’. Indeed, the paper went so far as to suggest that it was doubtful whether conducting further similar trials would be worthwhile and suggested that new avoidance measures were required. There was a fairly vocal response to this publication, with numerous letters appearing in the British Medical Journal

Journal

Pediatric Allergy and Immunology – Wiley

Published: Dec 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.