Finding Truth: How Much Do We Need Experts?

I am planning a column on the role of experts in translating medical evidence. Evidence is important because it’s how doctors know they are helping not harming people. It’s hardly news that the new (digital) democracy of information has changed the rules of influence in Medicine. In the days of old, academic doctors generated, analyzed and translated evidence. We called these people key opinion leaders (KOLs). To become a KOL, you stayed in academics, published lots of studies, and crucially, you were not too critical of prevailing views. If you did that, you could get invited to speak at meetings, write editorials and participate in expert guideline documents. This vertical (or top-down) model still exists, but social media and the democracy of information is breaking it down a bit. More and more, ideas can garner influence based on their merit rather than their source. Resistance to expert views seems to be on the rise. Some recent examples: Neurology experts strongly recommend use of TPA (clot-busting drugs) in stroke. Many emergency doctors have looked at the same evidence and are not convinced. I’ve sided with the emergency doctors, but our analyses have been criticized mostly because we are not “experts.” Cardiology societies have endorsed recent guidelines for treating high blood pressure. Family medicine leaders have looked at the same evidence and come to a different view. The USPSTF (United States Preventive Services Task Force) a...
Source: Dr John M - Category: Cardiology Authors: Source Type: blogs