History of the concept of ‘levels of evidence’ and their current status in relation to primary prevention through lifestyle interventions
- 1 April 2004
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Public Health Nutrition
- Vol. 7 (2) , 279-284
- https://doi.org/10.1079/phn2003535
Abstract
Primary prevention is a major option to reduce the burden of chronic disease in populations. Because lifestyle interventions have proved to be effective, lifestyle recommendations including nutritional advice are made abundantly. However, both their credibility and their effectiveness are often considered not to be high. Therefore, scientific evidence should form the basis of recommendations and, as in clinical medicine, a rational approach should be followed for the evaluation of evidence. In this paper, the development and current concepts of ‘levels of evidence’ as they are applied in clinical medicine are outlined and their impact on evidence-based recommendations is discussed. Next, the question is raised as to how far the existing schemes are applicable to the evaluation of issues pertaining to primary prevention through lifestyle changes. Current schemes were developed mainly for clinical research questions and therefore place major emphasis on randomised controlled trials as the main and most convincing evidence in the evaluation process. These types of study are rarely available for lifestyle-related factors and might even not be feasible to obtain. Arguments are advanced to support the notion that a modification of currently existing ‘levels of evidence’ as developed for clinical research questions might be necessary. Thereby, one might be able to accommodate the specific aspects of evidence-related issues of recommendations for primary prevention through lifestyle changes, like dietary changes.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Systematic reviews in epidemiology: why are we so far behind?International Journal of Epidemiology, 2002
- Table A. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendationsEvidence-based Oncology, 2001
- A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trialsAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology, 2000
- Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research DesignsNew England Journal of Medicine, 2000
- Assessing “Best Evidence”: Issues in Grading the Quality of Studies for Systematic ReviewsThe Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, 1999
- North of England evidence based guideline development project: guideline on the use of aspirin as secondary prophylaxis for vascular disease in primary careBMJ, 1998
- Weighing the evidence: the Canadian experienceThe American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1997
- Rating the quality of evidence for clinical practice guidelinesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1996
- Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health careBMJ, 1996
- The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1965