The Evidence-Based Medicine Management of Endometriosis Should Be Updated for the Limitations of Trial Evidence, the Multivariability of Decisions, Collective Experience, Heuristics, and Bayesian Thinking

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background/Objectives: The diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis should be based on the best available evidence. Emphasising the risk of bias, the pyramid of evidence has the double-blind, randomised controlled trial and its meta-analyses on top. After the grading of all evidence by a group of experts, clinical guidelines are formulated using well-defined rules. Unfortunately, the impact of evidence-based medicine (EBM) on the management of endometriosis has been limited and, possibly, occasionally harmful. Methods: For this research, the inherent problems of diagnosis and treatment were discussed by a working group of endometriosis and EBM specialists, and the relevant literature was reviewed. Results: Most clinical decisions are multivariable, but randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot handle multivariability because adopting a factorial design would require prohibitively large cohorts and create randomization problems. Single-factor RCTs represent a simplification of the clinical reality. Heuristics and intuition are both important for training and decision-making in surgery; experience, Bayesian thinking, and learning from the past are seldom considered. Black swan events or severe complications and accidents are marginally discussed in EBM since trial evidence is limited for rare medical events. Conclusions: The limitations of EBM for managing endometriosis and the complementarity of multivariability, heuristics, Bayesian thinking, and experience should be recognized. Especially in surgery, the value of training and heuristics, as well as the importance of documenting the collective experience and of the prevention of complications, are fundamental. These additions to EBM and guidelines will be useful in changing the Wild West mentality of surgery resulting from the limited scope of EBM data because of the inherent multivariability, combined with the low number of similar interventions.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.