Dr. Cochrane's experience as a
prisoner of war in German hands
gave him reason to question the value
of medicine. He was assigned to provide
medical care to 20,000 prisoners
living on 600 calories a day and
suffering from diarrhea, typhoid,
diphtheria, infections, jaundice and
sand-fly fever. From a ramshackle
hospital, all he had to offer was
aspirin, antacid and skin antiseptic.
Without medical tests and medications,
he expected hundreds to die
of diphtheria alone. Instead, three of
the four deaths experienced during
his stay were from gunshot wounds,
not disease. He understood that the excellent results had nothing
to do his clinical skills as a doctor, but clearly demonstrated the
recuperative power of the human body.
Returning to Britain, Dr. Cochrane found the lack of evidence
supporting treatments of his day frustrating. He spoke
and wrote of the importance of systematically reviewing randomized
controlled trials (RCTs). His words were recognized
and valued by lay people, as well as health professionals as medical
care at that time was often a matter of life and death. While
some interventions appeared to treat the problem, they actually
resulted in increased patient death. Doctors needed to know
which treatments were both effective and free from serious side
effects like death.
The first Cochrane Center opened in Oxford, UK in 1992
and now oral health-care reviews are part of the Cochrane
Collaboration. There are many reviews directly related to oral
health. Looking for research to support dental hygiene care
found two reviews. The first review included one study on recall
intervals since no other studies were found that fit inclusion criteria
for evaluation. The conclusion: "There is insufficient evidence
to support or refute the practice of encouraging patients
to attend for dental check-ups at six monthly intervals."
The review of routine scale and polish for periodontal health
included nine studies and came to this conclusion: "The research
evidence is of insufficient quality to
reach any conclusions regarding the
beneficial and adverse effects of routine
scaling and polishing for periodontal
health and regarding the effects of
providing this intervention at different
time intervals." Since the studies evaluated
were performed by periodontists
or periodontal graduate students, this
comment was included in the review:
"There were no studies comparing the
effects of scaling and polishing provided
by dentists or professionals complementary
to dentistry."
The scientific evidence for dental
hygiene care is currently based on tradition
and research performed by periodontists,
not dental hygienists. This lack of evidence holds true for
dentistry as well as dental hygiene. Performing research to prove that
what is currently being done works is not always interesting to
researchers who want to "discover" something new and exciting.
However, as a profession we do need to identify scientific evidence
for the care we provide. It's not enough to say "But I know it works."
Scientific evidence is only one part of the equation.
Clinicians must bear the responsibility of considering the nature
of the condition, one's experience in treating a particular condition,
and the preferences of individual patients.
|