Zárate A, Hernández-Valencia M, Basurto L, Saucedo R

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 512-516
PDF size: 205.81 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Currently, in medicine there is an environment replete with controversy and debate, partially due to the popular concept Evidence- Based Medicine, and to the development of technological advances and, apparently, better therapeutic resources. This has led to the establishment of an over-diagnosis epidemic and to an excess of therapeutic interventions, which do not necessarily lead to a longer life expectancy. Some medical controversies, which have called the attention of physicians and even of common people are those related with dislipoproteinemias, pre-diabetes and detection of cancer in asymptomatic persons. The debate and the controversy will surely continue and that is why it is very important to emphasize that clinical practice should be personalized, taking into account risks and implied benefits.

REFERENCES

1. Summerskill W. Evidence-based practice and the individual. Lancet. 2005;365:13-4.

2. Hunink M G Myriam. Does evidence based medicine do good than harm? BMJ. 2004;329:1051.

3. McNutt RA, Livingston EH. Evidence-based medicine requires appropriate clinical context. JAMA. 2010;303:454-5.

4. Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Progress in evidencebased medicine. JAMA. 2008;300:1814-6.

5. Goldberger JJ, Buxton AE. Personalized medicine vs. guideline-based medicine. JAMA. 2013;309:2559-60.

6. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomized controlled trials: to whom do the results of this trial apply? Lancet. 2005;365:82-93.

7. Mega JL, Sabatine MS, Antman EM. Population and personalized medicine in the modern era. JAMA. 2014;312:1969-70.

8. Solomon BD. Incidentalomas in genomics and radiology. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:988-90.

9. Schulte J, Rothaus CS, Adler JN, Phimister EG. Clinical decisions: Screening an asymptomatic person for genetic risk--polling results. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:e30.

10. Pérez-Fernández GA. The arbitrariness of the cut off points. A refl ection since the perspective of predisease. Arch Cardiol Mex. 2012;82:260-1.

11. Organización Panamericana de la Salud/Organización Mundial de la Salud. La epidemia mundial de enfermedades crónicas. Disponible en: http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_ docman&task=doc_view&gid=16322&Itemid=270 [Consultado el 26 de enero de 2017].

12. Zárate A, Manuel-Apolinar L, Basurto L, De la Chesnaye E, Saldivar I. Colesterol y aterosclerosis. Consideraciones históricas y tratamiento. Arch Cardiol Med. 2016;86:163-9.

13. Xiao C, Dash S, Morgantini C, Hegele RA, Lewis GF. Pharmacological targeting of the atherogenic dyslipidemia complex: the next frontier in CVD prevention beyond lowering LDL cholesterol. Diabetes. 2016;65:1767-78.

14. Viera AJ. Predisease: when does it make sense? Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33:122-34.

15. Biller-Andorno N1, Jüni P. Abolishing mammography screening programs? A view from the Swiss Medical Board. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1965-7.

16. Nelson HD, O’Meara ES, Kerlikowske K, Balch S, Miglioretti D. Factors associated with rates of falsepositive and false-negative results from digital mammography screening: an analysis of registry data. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:226-35.

17. Moyer VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:880-91.

18. Dijkstra MG, van Zummeren M, Rozendaal L, van Kemenade FJ, Helmerhorst TJ, Snijders PJ, et al. Safety of extending screening intervals beyond fi ve years in cervical screening programmes with testing for high risk human papillomavirus: 14 year follow-up of population based randomised cohort in the Netherlands. BMJ. 2016;355 :i4924.

19. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2012;366: 981-90.