Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Ending Medical Reversal: Improving Outcomes, Saving Lives 1st Edition
Why medicine adopts ineffective or harmful medical practices only to abandon them―sometimes too late.
Medications such as Vioxx and procedures such as vertebroplasty for back pain are among the medical "advances" that turned out to be dangerous or useless. What Dr. Vinayak K. Prasad and Dr. Adam S. Cifu call medical reversal happens when doctors start using a medication, procedure, or diagnostic tool without a robust evidence base―and then stop using it when it is found not to help, or even to harm, patients.
In Ending Medical Reversal, Drs. Prasad and Cifu narrate fascinating stories from every corner of medicine to explore why medical reversals occur, how they are harmful, and what can be done to avoid them. They explore the difference between medical innovations that improve care and those that only appear to be promising. They also outline a comprehensive plan to reform medical education, research funding and protocols, and the process for approving new drugs that will ensure that more of what gets done in doctors' offices and hospitals is truly effective.
-
ISBN-101421417723
-
ISBN-13978-1421417721
-
Edition1st
-
PublisherJohns Hopkins University Press
-
Publication dateNovember 1, 2015
-
LanguageEnglish
-
Dimensions6 x 0.92 x 9 inches
-
Print length280 pages
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
Review
Every doctor should read this book.
― JAMA Internal Medicine[A]n excellent and realistic discussion of some of the horror stories that occur in medical practice . . . The examples are quite interesting and certainly educational for all readers. Highly recommended.
― ChoiceEnding Medical Reversal goes far in teaching medical students and practicing physicians alike how to learn on our own.
― The LancetThis has to be on the reading list for medical and nursing students.
― Nursing TimesEnding Medical Reversal presents persuasive evidence that many current standard-of-care treatments are probably ineffective or harmful, thoroughly explains how such treatments came to be accepted, and proposes a number of ways to address the general problem (only some of which involve avaricious companies and mercenary physicians) and minimize its impact on a specific patient.
― Journal of Clinical Research Best PracticesDr. Prasad and Dr. Cifu offer a five-step plan, including pointers for determining if a given treatment is really able to do what you want it to do, and advice on finding a like-minded doctor who won't object to a certain amount of back-seat driving.
― The New York TimesWhen I describe Ending Medical Reversal as revolutionary, I don't use the term lightly. Go out and read it―right now.
― Common Sense Family DoctorShould be considered for undergraduate reading lists. Keep a copy in the pharmacy or your briefcase as a great icebreaker or discussion point with other local healthcare professionals.
― The Pharmaceutical JournalAn outstanding, genre-defining work, this book will be read by students, educators, policymakers, scientists, scholars, medical skeptics, and health-care pundits alike.
-- John Henning Schumann, MD, host of Public Radio Tulsa's Medical MattersAn important book that frames medical reversal in a compelling way. Readers will be drawn to this clearly written account.
-- David S. Jones, MD, Harvard University, author of Broken Hearts: The Tangled History of Cardiac CareBook Description
Why medicine adopts ineffective or harmful medical practices only to abandon them―sometimes too late.
From the Back Cover
Medications such as Vioxx and procedures such as vertebroplasty for back pain are among the medical "advances" that turned out to be dangerous or useless. What Dr. Vinayak K. Prasad and Dr. Adam S. Cifu call medical reversal happens when doctors start using a medication, procedure, or diagnostic tool without a robust evidence base―and then stop using it when it is found not to help, or even to harm, patients.
In Ending Medical Reversal, Drs. Prasad and Cifu narrate fascinating stories from every corner of medicine to explore why medical reversals occur, how they are harmful, and what can be done to avoid them. They explore the difference between medical innovations that improve care and those that only appear to be promising. They also outline a comprehensive plan to reform medical education, research funding and protocols, and the process for approving new drugs that will ensure that more of what gets done in doctors' offices and hospitals is truly effective.
"Every doctor should read this book."―JAMA Internal Medicine
"[A]n excellent and realistic discussion of some of the horror stories that occur in medical practice . . . Highly recommended."―Choice
"Ending Medical Reversal goes far in teaching medical students and practicing physicians alike how to learn on our own."―The Lancet
"This has to be on the reading list for medical and nursing students."―Nursing Times
"Ending Medical Reversal presents persuasive evidence that many current standard-of-care treatments are probably ineffective or harmful, thoroughly explains how such treatments came to be accepted, and proposes a number of ways to address the general problem (only some of which involve avaricious companies and mercenary physicians) and minimize its impact on a specific patient."―Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices
"Dr. Prasad and Dr. Cifu offer a five-step plan, including pointers for determining if a given treatment is really able to do what you want it to do, and advice on finding a like-minded doctor who won't object to a certain amount of back-seat driving."―The New York Times
"When I describe Ending Medical Reversal as revolutionary, I don't use the term lightly. Go out and read it―right now."―Common Sense Family Doctor
"Should be considered for undergraduate reading lists. Keep a copy in the pharmacy or your briefcase as a great icebreaker or discussion point with other local healthcare professionals."―The Pharmaceutical Journal
About the Author
Vinayak K. Prasad, MD, MPH, is a practicing hematologist-oncologist and internal medicine physician. He is an associate professor of medicine and public health at Oregon Health & Science University. Adam S. Cifu, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. He is a practicing general internist, medical educator, and the coauthor of Symptom to Diagnosis: An Evidence-Based Guide.
Product details
- Publisher : Johns Hopkins University Press; 1st edition (November 1, 2015)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 280 pages
- ISBN-10 : 1421417723
- ISBN-13 : 978-1421417721
- Reading age : 18 years and up
- Item Weight : 1.1 pounds
- Dimensions : 6 x 0.92 x 9 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #976,505 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #377 in Health Policy (Books)
- #434 in Medical Ethics (Books)
- #1,025 in History of Medicine (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author
Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
To understand why, the underpinnings of the evidence-based medicine community need to be examined, and the books lay them out in understandable and lucid prose, with lots of examples for people unfamiliar with medical practice. The most important of them is the following: medical theory, in the sense of scientific models that allow for accurate prediction of real-world outcomes, is very poor. Another way of saying this: biology is very complex, and predicting real-world outcomes in biological systems with any precision is mostly impossible.
The second most important assumption is that the vast majority of modern medical interventions, even when they do work, have modest effect sizes. A new cancer drug, if you're lucky, might increase survival by an average of a month, a new weight loss drug might let you lose another 5-10 lbs, and a surgery might save 79% of patients instead of 77%. These are made-up numbers, but the point stands: on average, when new drugs works, which is itself rare, they tend to be incremental improvements over the old standard of care.
There are exceptions, but they're rare in the modern era: for instance, you didn't need RCT's to see that antiseptic techniques improves surgery, because the effect sizes were enormous-- for instance, operating on the peritoneum, previously a death sentence, became possible. Amputation mortality rates fell by more than 50%. The effects were so powerful they could be seen with practically any study design.
The third tenet of EBM is that most interventions, even the best funded and most plausible candidates, fail when tested in the real world. As the authors put in their book, this means that the prior probability of any given intervention working is very low, even in the late phases of drug development. This has implications for the types of evidence that physicians should require to shift their guess on whether a given drug works. Importantly, developing medical interventions is incredibly hard and expensive, and seems to be getting harder over time, giving rise to the reverse Moore's Law that has been termed "Eroom's Law" .
As a result of these 3 factors, to really know if a medical intervention is effective, you need randomized controlled trials where the effects of a single intervention are tested on roughly similar groups of patients and outcomes are tracked in a rigorous manner. RCT's are onerous, slow, and require immense coordination-- but they've overturned many pet theories and biologically plausible interventions. The fact that these theories and interventions turn out to not work is not the problem-- after all, false starts and experimentation are how science progresses-- the problem is that they're often implemented prematurely, before rigorous testing, and only later, as doubt builds, are they truly tested.
This is "Medical Reversal". There are other important arguments in the book, but they're mostly subsidiary to these 3 key arguments. Among them is a critique of surrogate endpoints, criticism of sloppily and hastily implemented 'systemic' interventions in hospital systems, the profusion of observational studies purporting to show harmful or beneficial effects of lifestyle factors, and the supplement industry. All of these other criticisms could be short books on their own, but they're woven in to this book in a seamless way. If I could pin the critique of systemic interventions with only preliminary evidence on the wall of every major hospital chain, I would!
There's a more radical part of the book, which I think is underappreciated: the call to action in the later half of the book. The authors argue for a new era in medicine, wherein a large fraction of patients will be enrolled in RCT's, constantly testing medical dogma, even for simple questions that are currently poorly understood. They want an easier and more seamless way to recruit patients in clinical trials, which would be done at lower cost than current methods, and think this can be done partly by viewing RCT's as the default.
Any practice in medicine that is currently understudied would be subject to this "RCT by default, opt out if you want" framework. Since RCT's would be testing treatments that are, theoretically, in equipoise, this is far more ethical than our current era, in which many medical interventions are only tested rigorously AFTER being used on patients in uncontrolled settings. As they correctly point out, the "safest way to receive a new drug is in a trial with a control arm. The randomized-controlled-trial design provides a built-in safeguard—trials are stopped if the treatment turns out to be harmful".
As they acknowledge, this radical change is a big ask, but "evidence-based medicine...is the only rational way to provide care" and in my view, is the only ethical way to practice medicine. They make this radical change seem like the self-evidently obvious thing to do...
Later in the book they critique medical education for it's elevation of purported drug mechanisms and biological minutiae over a better understanding of medical evidence, landmark clinical trials, and more contact with patients in clinical settings. They call for an overhaul of medical education. A nice quote on this: "The primacy of the basic sciences is the reason that cardiologists could not accept the finding that niacin did not save lives. It is why radiologists could not accept that vertebroplasty did not help back pain. It is the reason orthopedists could not accept that repairing torn menisci did not help knee pain."
The book isn't perfect. There are some relatively minor factual stumbles which don't affect the core arguments.
For example, it uncritically cites "Nudge" by Sunstein and Thaler, which is based in large part on Behavioral Economics-- but at least some of that work has not fared well in the replication crisis, as Kahneman himself has pointed out in a blog post. So that's pretty ironic. Very little of their argument rests on these points, merely a few throwaway paragraphs, so it's a very minor misstep.
I also think its slightly deceptive to say that supplements don't have to admit to a lack of evidence, as they claim. They do. Every supplement I've ever purchased has had, in clear writing, "This product is not approved....to treat or prevent any disease". Of course, these same supplement bottles claim benefits, so its a mixed message, but supplements certainly have labeling to indicate they're not approved. I would certainly agree with them, that, as a whole, the supplement industry is mostly a waste of consumer money for little purpose.
The authors also repeatedly criticize pharma-funded trials and influence, but my understanding is that pharma-funded trials generally comply with reporting regulations better than academia funded trials, and may, in fact, be more trustworthy than the average academic study. I'm not sure about this, but I vaguely recall a high-profile article showing this. Not sure.
Then there are the ideological disagreements one can have with the book. I wonder what the authors would think of cosmetic surgery when they write "The list of medical practices that improve outcomes among healthy individuals is a very short one." They're right about medical outcomes, but individuals have goals besides health, and cosmetic surgery can occasionally help achieve those goals. They do mention quality of life as an outcome of importance, and I would certainly agree with them that cosmetic surgery should be rigorously tested, but it would be an interesting debate to have...
In regards to supplements, individuals often have goals besides health as well: performance in the gym, aesthetics, etc. There are a small handful of supplements with RCT evidence of efficacy: creatine is probably the best example. It works pretty reliably, though with a modest effect, on increasing muscular endurance and likely muscle growth. Caffeine is another example. Both are used by millions, with very good safety profiles. Would the authors propose that all non-medical usage of supplements be banned? I would love to hear their thoughts on that.
More controversially, plenty of people would make trade-offs between quality of life and lifespan. How would a clinical trial be run on these questions? They could theoretically be done, but as it stands I think any trial that, for instance, allowed healthy middle-aged men access to exogenous testosterone in supraphysiological doses, would struggle to get run. Since most of medicine doesn't fall into these cracks, their argument is still a very solid one-- these are more just wrinkles of disagreement I'd be interested in hearing about.
Cosmetic surgery and supplement use for non-medical purposes both push on an interesting corner of their argument: freedom. For the clinical trial infrastructure to work, participating in a trial has to be the main way that drugs get approved and patients get access to experimental medications. If alternative pathways to drugs are available in large numbers, and enrollment in trials is threatened, this whole RCT structure falls apart. Medical freedom is not exactly compatible with "RCT's for all".
To their credit, the authors sort of touch on this: they focus on the pull side of RCT incentives-- if clinical trials are much easier to run, if inclusion criteria for new drugs were not so strict, if many more patients were enrolled, etc. then patients would have much fewer incentives to try to get drugs outside of approved protocols. And yet, with urine and blood testing of drugs, medical tourism, and patients sharing information about side effects with each other over social media, it is becoming increasingly possible for patients to figure out who is in a control/experimental arm and get drugs outside of approved channels. These are real threats to RCT's, and I'm very curious what the authors think of these developments.
My final disagreement is with optimism in medicine. I'm not even sure the authors would disagree with this, since they're not really aiming their critique at drug researchers per se, but just in case: while drugs with large effect sizes are rare in medicine, they're not unknown. In the modern era, perhaps only HIV and Hep-C drugs, along with immunotherapy in some cancers and Gleevec meet this benchmark of large effect sizes. While most medicines will be incremental advances of the state of the art, I hope we continue looking for moonshots. We should be properly skeptical of anybody who claims to have found one, but rejoice if a good RCT shows them to be right. Expect failure or incremental advance, rejoice when we're wrong!
Overall, I can't recommend this book enough!
It can be intimidating reading a book about medical research without a medical background. Fortunately, the authors explain everything so well throughout the book that the content is easy to read and understand.
As a hospital nurse, I did see some of the medical reversals which were mentioned in the book. That is why the book was even more interesting for me to read. I highly recommend that nurses and nursing students read the book.
Ending Medical Reversal advocates for "evidence based medicine" as the gold standard to which all doctors should aspire. Prasad and Cifu explain to the lay reader how not all medical studies are equal, discuss the placebo effect, present an outline for a better curriculum for medical training and, I found most importantly, offer practical advice on how I can avoid being a casualty of a treatment based upon flawed data or reasoning. This is a book that I look forward to rereading to ingrain these concepts in my mind. It is so easy to believe that just because something is new and hyped, that it is better.
Top reviews from other countries
It certainly gave me good insight for how similar the medical profession deals with methodological inertia; just like every other professional field - with resistance and wariness toward change.