After man's death, people (finally) look at the right evidence.
Something happened recently that reminded me to remain open to different types of evidence. It also showed why it's crucial to present evidence in a way that grabs people's attention. A tragic death. I live on a large urban park/lake visited by many people daily. For years, an elderly man walked with his dog in our neighborhood. He was always friendly and rather well-known, so it came as a shock when he was struck by a car, dying of his injuries soon thereafter. It occurred to me that we should have a vigil: To remember him, and to draw attention to the busy park perimeter ...a street with few sidewalks. Oftentimes I see people in wheelchairs, or with bab

Evidence shows low adoption of electronic health records. This is going to take awhile.
Improving health outcomes in the U.S. won't depend only on evidence-based medicine. It will also depend on better technologies, such as electronic health records. But according to research recently reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, "only 1.5% of U.S. hospitals have a comprehensive electronic-records system (i.e., present in all clinical units), and an additional 7.6% have a basic system (i.e., present in at least one clinical unit)." These changes will take longer than any of us would like. Steve Lohr of the

'Psychological harm' considered along with traditional evidence in mammogram guidelines.
In case you've been under a rock, an expert panel recommended that most women in their 40s don't need a mammogram screen for breast cancer. The group, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, created a firestorm: Many (not all) oncologists, primary care physicians, and other groups disagreed with the recommendation. Details on the panel's process are summarized at the end of this post. (BTW, the U.S. government is now trying to distance itself from the USPSTF action.) Evidence is easy. Decision-making is hard.

Fun with recreational evidence.
Happy Fun-with-Evidence Friday. I'm the first to admit that talking about "evidence-based ___" isn't the best way to attract a crowd. Making evidence interesting - and, with any luck, fun - isn't easy. Here's how some folks are doing it successfully. Recreational probability. The site Book of Odds presents the statistical odds of all sorts of things: Having twins between the ages of 40-44, being unemployed, throwing a no-hitter. They make it relevant by answering the question "What are the odds of me?" And they have fun features such as The Odds Couple (see comparison below

Bill Maher attacks U.S. vaccination program because of pharma, government interests. But he usually
Bill Maher -- who is sometimes funny and insightful, and sometimes insulting and vulgar -- is questioning U.S. vaccination programs, saying he doesn't want to trust the government, and wondering aloud whether there are forces who want people to stay sick in the interest of corporate profits. Hmmm... he sounds like one of the crazy types he's made a career of mocking.Is Maher just messing with us, playing this for ratings? Maybe. If he is, he should say so. The evidence shows that vaccination programs typically offer benefits far outweighing their risks.