When transforming SGIM’s shared values of justice and
non-malfeasance (“do no harm”) into action against the COVID-19 pandemic,
reliance on sound medical evidence is paramount. Throughout the pandemic,
policies on prevention and management of COVID-19 have relied heavily on observational
data. Such reliance, however, has become increasingly criticized and begs the
key question: when transforming our values into action against COVID-19, do
observational data do more harm than good?
To illustrate the tension between the two viewpoints, a large
observational analysis found a substantial clinical improvement associated with
convalescent plasma therapy, yet a small randomized controlled trial showed no
significant difference, albeit a small, non-significant trend toward clinical
improvement. In a session moderated by Dr. Mary Beth Hamel, a general internist
and Executive Deputy Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, this debate
features Dr. Andrew Althouse, a statistician and researcher at University of
Pittsburgh, and Dr. Rodney Hayward, a general internist and health services
researcher from University of Michigan and Ann Arbor VA.
Dr. Althouse defends the randomized data perspective and Dr.
Hayward defends observational data for a generalist audience. Next, Dr. Hamel moderates
the debate, touching on themes to enhance clinicians’ ability to interpret
medical evidence. Scientific truth is increasingly vital for translating our
shared values of justice and non-malfeasance into evidenced-based action.
CEU Available: 1.0 CME; 1.0 MOC
CEU Expires: April 30, 2024
To receive
CME/MOC credit, you must (a) watch the video and (b) complete
the short assessment. After these two steps are completed, you will receive a
certificate.