HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Keenan, J. V. Articles by Fedorowicz, Z. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Keenan, J. V. Articles by Fedorowicz, Z.

Disconcerting responses to questionnaires like those listed in the March JADA’s Question of the Month and reported in June JADA are a frequent byproduct of poor construct validity in formulating and expediting these surveys. If the questions and answers in the Question of the Month do not qualify as a scientific survey and cannot be considered as statistically significant, then the incompleteness of the respondent’s knowledge of the "triad" in evidence-based dentistry, or EBD, certainly does so.

The rather lengthy, grandiose definition of EBD given by the ADA and the poignant comments of Dr. Amid Ismail that portray the official outlook strengthen the supposition that the full message is not well understood by the dental community.

Where are we failing? Inevitably, EBD is seen as a "metastatic offshoot" of evidence-based medicine, and the most frequently quoted definition for both is Sackett and colleagues’ 1996 version: "the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients."¹ The inadequacy of this definition, by apparently excluding the patient from the decision-making process, motivated its revision by Sackett and colleagues and its "new, improved" version highlights the contemporary view of the patient as a partner in the concept: "the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values."²

Coincidentally, Sackett and colleagues appear to have strengthened the contribution of the provider’s clinical skills, possibly to allay clinicians’ fears of a "prescriptive" slant to the concept. These perceptions were certainly confirmed by the respondents to the March JADA Question of the Month.

The predictability of the responses should come as no surprise as opinions about EBD, based on an incomplete understanding, have limited value, and "quick surveys" only serve to emphasize the error expressed by dichotomous views. An awareness assessment of EBD with the grouping of respondents’ opinions indicating levels of awareness would have provided more valuable information related to our understanding the totality of EBD.

	REFERENCES

TOP REFERENCES

1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996;312(7023):71–2.[Free Full Text]
   
   
2. Sackett DL, Strauss SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
   
   

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Keenan, J. V. Articles by Fedorowicz, Z. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Keenan, J. V. Articles by Fedorowicz, Z.