Article Text
Abstract
Who are we?
We are neurologists willing to build our personal clinical decisions on the results of clinical scientific research. Although we are looking for certainties on which to base these decisions, we believe that the ‘grey areas’ of uncertainty in neurological treatment can be gradually reduced by a continuous scientific process that moves from clinical experience through experimental research synthesis and back again to clinical work.
As a medical discipline, there is no doubt that neurology is expanding in many neuroscience and clinical practice areas. Now, more than ever, it is important that our therapeutic decisions are based on clinical evidence, allowing us to respond with effective interventions. Randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews of those trials, and meta-analysis should be used more frequently to improve the evidence-based approaches to evaluating the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. There are many treatment options available to us, and we must ensure that we
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Other content recommended for you
- Current epistemological problems in evidence based medicine
- Is clinical neurology really so difficult?
- Decade of progress in motor functional neurological disorder: continuing the momentum
- Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews
- EULAR/EFORT recommendations for the diagnosis and initial management of patients with acute or recent onset swelling of the knee
- Exploratory trials in mental health: anything to learn from other disciplines?
- Placebos in chronic pain: evidence, theory, ethics, and use in clinical practice
- Crossroads of methodological choices in research synthesis: insights from two network meta-analyses on preventing relapse in schizophrenia
- Prognostication and shared decision making in neurocritical care
- Performance and training standards for endovascular ischemic stroke treatment