DOCSLIB.ORG

Hierarchies of Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hierarchies of Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine 1 The London School of Economics and Political Science HIERARCHIES OF EVIDENCE IN EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE CHRISTOPHER J BLUNT A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, LOGIC & SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, LONDON, SEPTEMBER 2015 2 DECLARATION I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 79,599 words. 3 ABSTRACT Hierarchies of evidence are an important and influential tool for appraising evidence in medicine. In recent years, hierarchies have been formally adopted by organizations including the Cochrane Collaboration [1], NICE [2,3], the WHO [4], the US Preventive Services Task Force [5], and the Australian NHMRC [6,7]. The development of such hierarchies has been regarded as a central part of Evidence-Based Medicine (e.g. [8-10]), a movement within healthcare which prioritises the use of epidemiological evidence such as that provided by Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs). Philosophical work on the methodology of medicine has so far mostly focused on claims about the superiority of RCTs, and hence has largely neglected the questions of what hierarchies are, what assumptions they require, and how they affect clinical practice. This thesis shows that there is great variation in the hierarchies defended and in the interpretations they are, and can be, given. The interpretative assumptions made in using hierarchies are crucial to the content and defensibility of the underlying philosophical commitments concerning evidence and medical practice. Once this variation is been identified, it becomes clear that the little philosophical work that has been done so far affects only some hierarchies, under some interpretations. Modest interpretations offered by La Caze [11], conditional hierarchies like GRADE [12-14], and heuristic approaches such as that defended by Howick et al. [15,16] all survive previous philosophical criticism. This thesis extends previous criticisms by arguing that modest interpretations are so weak as to be unhelpful for clinical practice; that GRADE and similar conditional models omit clinically- relevant information, such as information about variation in treatments’ effects and the causes of different responses to therapy; and that heuristic approaches lack the necessary empirical support. The conclusion is that hierarchies in general embed untenable philosophical assumptions: principally that information about average treatment effects backed by high-quality evidence can justify strong recommendations, and that the impact of evidence from individual studies can and should be appraised in isolation. Hierarchies are a poor basis for the application of evidence in clinical practice. The Evidence-Based Medicine movement should move beyond them and explore alternative tools for appraising the overall evidence for therapeutic claims. 4 For Lynn Blunt (1955-2014) 5 There was but one question he left unasked, and it vibrated between his lines: if gross miscalculations of a person’s value could occur on a baseball field, before a live audience of thirty thousand, and a television audience of millions more, what did that say about the measurement of performance in other lines of work? If professional baseball players could be over- or under-valued, who couldn’t? Bad as they may have been, the statistics used to evaluate baseball players were probably far more accurate than anything used to measure the value of people who didn’t play baseball for a living. —Michael Lewis, Moneyball, p.72 [17] Real evidence is usually vague and unsatisfactory. It has to be examined—sifted. But here the whole thing is cut and dried. No, my friend, this evidence has been very cleverly manufactured—so cleverly that it has defeated its own ends. —Agatha Christie, The Mysterious Affair at Styles [18] 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank John Worrall for supervising this thesis, for his continual support and feedback, and for giving the lectures which introduced me to Evidence-Based Medicine in the distant past of my undergraduate days. I also want to thank Roman Frigg for acting as secondary supervisor, and for encouraging me to study for the PhD and to do it at LSE. Huge thanks are also due to Luc Bovens for his support and for the opportunities to teach in the department, without which this thesis and my time at LSE would have been much the worse. Thanks are also due to Alex Voorhoeve, Foad Dizadji-Bahmani and Armin Schulz. I also want to thank Stephen John, Hasok Chang and Tim Lewens for their supervision whilst at Cambridge, and in particular Hasok for giving the first philosophy lecture I ever attended back in 2006. He is almost entirely accountable for my decision to study philosophy of science. My thanks also go to the Arts & Humanities Research Council and the Philosophy department for funding this work, and to Bill Bottriell for his extremely generous support as an undergraduate. Bill is one of the kindest and friendliest people I have been lucky enough to meet. Invaluable advice came from my friend and colleague Rosa Runhardt, as well as Catherine Greene and Nicolas Wuethrich. I was fortunate enough to teach a great many undergraduate and masters students over the last four years, and cannot stress enough how valuable that experience was. Unending gratitude goes to my father Robin Blunt and my mother, Lynn, who was probably the only person in the world who cared about this thesis more than me. I only wish she could read it. Finally, and most of all, thank you to my partner Kate Butler, without whose continual distractions and endless patience this thesis would either have been finished much sooner or never at all. 7 CONTENTS Chapter 1: Hierarchies of Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine p.10 Chapter 2: The Myths of the Hierarchy of Evidence p.37 Chapter 3: On the Interpretation of Hierarchies p.85 Chapter 4: The Challenges to Hierarchies p.118 Chapter 5: Relative Rankings p.156 Chapter 6: Evidence and Evidence Bases: Challenges to GRADE and Levels of Evidence p.174 Chapter 7: Conclusions: Heuristics and EBM after Hierarchies p.233 Bibliography p.251 8 TABLE OF FIGURES Fig.1 Hierarchy of evidence from Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature (2002) by Guyatt p.19 et al. Fig.2 Hierarchy of evidence from AASM (1999) by Chesson et al. p.21 Fig.3 ‘4s’ hierarchy of pre-appraised sources (2001) by Haynes. p.21 Fig.4 SIGN hierarchy of evidence bases (2004) from NICE Guideline Development Manual. p.22 Fig.5 Hierarchy of methodologies (1981) by Sackett. p.42 Fig.6 Hierarchy of evidence bases (2006) used by NICE. p.43 Fig.7 Hierarchy of evidence bases (1999) by the Australian National Health & Medical p.44 Research Council. Fig.8 Diagram summarizing the stages in GRADE appraisal (2011) by Guyatt et al. p.45 Fig.9 GRADE hierarchy (2011) by Balshem et al. p.46 Fig.10 Simplified GRADE hierarchy from ATS (2006) by Schunemann et al. p.49 Fig.11 Table presenting criteria for levels of evidence quality in GRADE from Users’ Guides to p.50 the Medical Literature (2008) by Guyatt et al. Fig.12 Hierarchy of evidence strength (1998) by Edwards, Russell & Stott. p.59 Fig.13 Levels of evidence hierarchy from CHEST (1992) by Cook et al. p.61 Fig.14 Levels of evidence hierarchy from CEBM (2009) by Howick et al. p.62 Fig.15 Grades of recommendation table from CEBM (2009) by Howick et al. p.63 Fig.16 Hierarchy and grades of recommendation from GREG (2003) by Mason & Eccles. p.64 Fig.17 Grades of recommendation table from CHEST (1998) by Guyatt et al. p.65 Fig.18 Hierarchy of evidence (2003) by Evans. p.67 Fig.19 Hierarchy of evidence from How to read a paper (1997) by Greenhalgh. p.69 Fig.20 Hierarchy of evidence bases with catch-all category (2000) by van Tulder et al. p.73 9 Fig.21 Table showing GRADE reformulated as a categorical hierarchy of evidence bases. p.77 Fig.22 Hierarchy of evidence bases with conditions from CHEST (1989) by Sackett. p.78 Fig.23 Hierarchy of evidence with conditions from AAN (2012) by Elamin & Montori. p.79 Fig.24 Example of a Sources of Invalidity table (1963) by Campbell & Stanley. p.88 Fig.25 First hierarchy of evidence (1979) by the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health p.90 Examination. Fig.26 Hierarchy of evidence from CHEST (1986) by Sackett. p.92 Fig.27 Checklist for valid evidence from CHEST (1992) by Cook et al. p.94 Fig.28 First EBM hierarchy of evidence from Users’ Guides IX (1995) by Guyatt et al. p.96 Fig.29 Tickbox hierarchy of evidence (1997) by Muir Gray. p.96 Fig.30 Hierarchy of evidence for CEBM (2002) by Ball & Phillips, an update of Phillips et al.’s p.101 1998 hierarchy. Fig.31 Hierarchy of evidence depicted in two formats (2011) by Eaves. p.106 Fig.32 Pyramid of evidence (2008) by Ho, Peterson & Masoudi. p.107 Fig.33 Table reporting study methodology, comparison, patient population, and primary p.161 and secondary outcome measures for four studies of Tocilizumab for Rheumatoid arthritis.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Cochrane Collaboration Establishes Representation in Colombia Why and for What Purpose?
    EDITORIAL • The Cochrane CollaborationE DITORIin ColombiaAL The Cochrane Collaboration establishes representation in Colombia Why and for what purpose? María XiMena rojas-reyes • Bogotá, D.C. (ColoMBia) DOI: https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2020.1382 Colombia is, among Latin American countries, the one with the longest track record in the effort to introduce evidence-based medicine to patient care and, subsequently, base health policy decisions on the evidence obtained from research. Several universities have contributed to this process, beginning with the creation of the first master’s program in clinical epidemiology in April 1997 at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana School of Medicine, followed by an interdepartmental master´s program in clinical epidemiology at the Universidad Nacional approved in 2004, and a clinical epidemiology program affiliated with the Universidad de Antioquia School of Medicine begun in 2005, and continuing to where we are today, with more than six specialization and master’s programs in clinical epidemiology offered at various universities throughout the country. Clinical epidemiology is a discipline in which scientific observations of intact human beings can be carried out and interpreted through the application of epidemiological meth- ods and principles to clinical practice problems. It provides clinicians with information regarding basic research methods which allows them to not only understand and assimilate the information from studies published in the literature, but also to organize their own observations to extract them from the anecdotal level and constitute them as scientifically solid, methodologically valid and clinically relevant assertions. Thus, the clinical epidemiology training programs have contributed to a growing number of clinicians nationwide having the ability to evaluate the validity of information in the medical literature (based on which patient care decisions are made) and produce a synthesis of valid and relevant information to guide the approach to and management of clinical problems.
    [Show full text]
  • JOANNA BRIGGS INSTITUTE Annual Report 2018
    JOANNA BRIGGS INSTITUTE Annual Report 2018 joannabriggs.org BETTER EVIDENCE. BETTER OUTCOMES. BRIGHTER FUTURE. 2 JBI’S IMPACT IN 2018 CONTENTS 4 Message from the Executive Director 5 JBI Strategic Plan update 6 Our team 7 Governance 8 JBI Model of Evidence-based Healthcare 10 GLOBAL REACH 11 Joanna Briggs Collaboration 12 JBC Regions 14 Africa 15 Americas 16 Asia 17 Australasia 18 Europe 19 JBI Colloquium 2018 20 Joanna Briggs Foundation 22 JBI Endorsement 24 Groups we work with 26 EDUCATION 27 CSRTP 28 Evidence-based Clinical Fellowship Program 29 Train the Trainer programs 30 Postgraduate Research Degrees 32 RESEARCH CONSULTANCY 34 EBP RESOURCES AND PUBLICATIONS 35 JBI EBP Database 36 JBI Journals 38 JBI Tools 40 Oral presentations by JBI staff 42 Publications by JBI staff Joanna Briggs Institute - Annual Report 2018 1 JBI’S IMPACT JBI EBP DATABASE IN 2018 Evidence- 4365 based point of care resources resources The widespread impact of JBI, both in Australia and worldwide, is attributable to our local and global partnerships that ensure evidence-based activities are context-specific and driven by individuals SCIENTIFIC WRITERS and groups that understand their specific health environments. Scientific 45 Writers partnered writers with JBI JBI ENDORSEMENT Granted 4 full JBI Endorsement organisations status JOANNA BRIGGS COLLABORATION 7 new groups 2 Joanna Briggs Institute - Annual Report 2018 POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH DEGREES JBI’s Master of Clinical Science 388 80+ 8 completions audit topics projects JBI’s Doctor of Philosophy 3 completions
    [Show full text]
  • The Cochrane Afraid to Challenge the Diagnostic Acu- Men Ofhis Ancestors Or Peers
    place or at the wrong time. He was not The Cochrane afraid to challenge the diagnostic acu- men ofhis ancestors or peers. He Collaboration believed that clinical questions often were answered on the basis oftests, Lessons for Public Health rather than on common sense. Practice and Evaluation? Obstetrics offered Cochrane an example ofthe practices ofthe day. Like many other fields ofmedicine, MIRUAM ORLEANS, PHD obstetrics adhered to treatments that perhaps were oftraditional or emo- tional value but which had little basis Archie Cochrane undoubtedly in science. The therapeutic use ofiron wanted to reach providers of and vitamins, the basis for extended health care with his ideas, but he lengths ofstay in hospitals following probably never thought that he would childbirth, and the basis for deciding father a revolution in the evaluation of how many maternity beds were needed medical practices. in Britain were all questioned by In his book ofonly 92 pages, Cochrane, who believed that these "Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random matters could and should be investi- Reflections on Health Services," pub- gated in trials. lished by the Nuffield Provincial Hos- Although Cochrane was by no pitals Trust in 1972, he cast a critical means the first clinician-epidemiologist eye on health care delivery, on many to suggest that randomized controlled A. L Cochrane well-respected and broadly applied trials were an appropriate means of interventions, and on whole fields of deciding questions regarding the effi- were appropriate for laboratory studies medicine and their underlying belief ciency and benefit oftreatment, I can and probably some animal and behav- systems (1).
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Epidemiology for BPSU Studies
    BPSU Study guidance – Basic epidemiology for BPSU studies Dr Simon Lenton on behalf of the Scientific Committee of the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit Updated 07 01 19 BPSU parent bodies: with support from: 1 Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3 Concepts of disease development ..................................................................... 3 Public health surveillance ...................................................................................... 4 Epidemiology ............................................................................................................. 4 Descriptive epidemiology ...................................................................................... 5 Analytic epidemiology ............................................................................................ 5 Triangulation (cross verification) ........................................................................ 6 Capture-recapture .................................................................................................... 6 BPSU research design ............................................................................................. 6 BPSU resources .......................................................................................................... 9 Appendix .................................................................................................................... 10 References ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Cochrane Collaboration: an Introduction P
    toolbox research are unlikely to have a high ticular research questions. This is why become dated and irrelevant. Because of number of clinically based trials direct­ the evidence-based supplement will also this we will seek to both review our core ed towards them. Equally journals endeavour to include these when appro­ list regularly and also look beyond this which publish qualitative research are priate and well conducted. list. If any reader feels any particular disadvantaged in a table based on ran­ It is equally important that only well article is important and should be domised-controlled trials or systematic conducted and reported randomised­ included please feel free to contact the review. However rating journals on the controlled trials or systematic reviews editorial office with the reference. We basis of their number of citations is are included. If we were to look in detail will then include it in our review equally open to challenge as noted at both the randomised-controlled tri­ process. Provided it passes the quality above. als and systematic reviews identified by filters it will appear in the supplement. Well-conducted randomised -con- the search strategy above many would trolled trials and systematic reviews not meet our quality criteria (see page Acknowledgements based on them have great potential for 32). This supplement will endeavour to To Christine Allot, Librarian, at the Berkshire Health Authority who conducted the answering questions about whether a include only good quality articles relat­ medline searches. treatment does more harm than good ing to treatment, diagnostic testing, particularly in the clinical situation.
    [Show full text]
  • Cebm-Levels-Of-Evidence-Background-Document-2-1.Pdf
    Background document Explanation of the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence Introduction The OCEBM Levels of Evidence was designed so that in addition to traditional critical appraisal, it can be used as a heuristic that clinicians and patients can use to answer clinical questions quickly and without resorting to pre-appraised sources. Heuristics are essentially rules of thumb that helps us make a decision in real environments, and are often as accurate as a more complicated decision process. A distinguishing feature is that the Levels cover the entire range of clinical questions, in the order (from top row to bottom row) that the clinician requires. While most ranking schemes consider strength of evidence for therapeutic effects and harms, the OCEBM system allows clinicians and patients to appraise evidence for prevalence, accuracy of diagnostic tests, prognosis, therapeutic effects, rare harms, common harms, and usefulness of (early) screening. Pre-appraised sources such as the Trip Database (1), (2), or REHAB+ (3) are useful because people who have the time and expertise to conduct systematic reviews of all the evidence design them. At the same time, clinicians, patients, and others may wish to keep some of the power over critical appraisal in their own hands. History Evidence ranking schemes have been used, and criticised, for decades (4-7), and each scheme is geared to answer different questions(8). Early evidence hierarchies(5, 6, 9) were introduced primarily to help clinicians and other researchers appraise the quality of evidence for therapeutic effects, while more recent attempts to assign levels to evidence have been designed to help systematic reviewers(8), or guideline developers(10).
    [Show full text]
  • The Hierarchy of Evidence Pyramid
    The Hierarchy of Evidence Pyramid Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Hierarchy-of-evidence-pyramid-The-pyramidal-shape-qualitatively-integrates-the- amount-of_fig1_311504831 [accessed 12 Dec, 2019] Available from: https://journals.lww.com/clinorthop/Fulltext/2003/08000/Hierarchy_of_Evidence__From_Case_Reports_to.4.aspx [accessed 14 March 2020] CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH Number 413, pp. 19–24 © 2003 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. Hierarchy of Evidence: From Case Reports to Randomized Controlled Trials Brian Brighton, MD*; Mohit Bhandari, MD, MSc**; Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/clinorthop by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3oaxD/v Paul Tornetta, III, MD†; and David T. Felson, MD* In the hierarchy of research designs, the results This hierarchy has not been supported in two re- of randomized controlled trials are considered cent publications in the New England Journal of the highest level of evidence. Randomization is Medicine which identified nonsignificant differ- the only method for controlling for known and ences in results between randomized, controlled unknown prognostic factors between two com- trials, and observational studies. The current au- parison groups. Lack of randomization predis- thors provide an approach to organizing pub- poses a study to potentially important imbal- lished research on the basis of study design, a hi- ances in baseline characteristics between two erarchy of evidence, a set of principles and tools study groups. There is a hierarchy of evidence, that help clinicians distinguish ignorance of evi- with randomized controlled trials at the top, con- dence from real scientific uncertainty, distin- trolled observational studies in the middle, and guish evidence from unsubstantiated opinions, uncontrolled studies and opinion at the bottom.
    [Show full text]
  • SURE Guides for Preparing and Using Evidence-Based Policy Briefs 1
    SURE Guides for Preparing and Using Evidence-Based Policy Briefs 1. Getting started Version 2.1 – Updated November 2011 The SURE Collaboration Suggested citation The SURE Collaboration. SURE Guides for Preparing and Using Evidence-Based Policy Briefs: 1. Getting started. Version 2.1 [updated November 2011]. The SURE Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.evipnet.org/sure Copyright You are free to use, distribute and reproduce this work provided the source is properly cited. You may not use this work for commercial purposes without the permission of the SURE Collaboration. SURE is a collaborative project that builds on and supports the Evidence-Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) in Africa and the Regional East African Community Health (REACH) Policy Initiative. The project involves teams of researchers and policymakers in seven African countries and is supported by research teams in three European countries and Canada. SURE is funded by the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme (Grant agreement no 222881). Web address: www.evipnet.org/sure Email address: [email protected] 1 1. Getting started 2 Summary In this guide we describe what an ‘evidence-based policy brief’ is, what should be included in such a document, the ways in which it can be used, and the first steps required when preparing one. • What is a policy brief? • What should be included in a policy brief? • How can policy briefs be used? • First steps This guide also includes additional resources for developing a plan to build the capacity needed to prepare and support the use of policy briefs. Resources are also provided for the preparation of rapid responses for policymakers in circumstances in which they may need research evidence but there is insufficient time to prepare a policy brief, or in instances when there is no need to prepare one.
    [Show full text]
  • UGRD 2017 Spring Joskow Ariane.Pdf (714.5
    On the Art of Teaching Medicine Ariane Joskow with Dr. Laura DeLozier Classics Department 29 April 2017 Overview • Who was Galen? • What did he teach? • How did he teach it? • Lasting effects • Conclusions Who was Galen? • Galen of Pergamon • Born in c. 130 CE • Studied in Pergamum, then in Alexandria in Egypt • In 162 moved to Rome, quickly gained notoriety for his success. • Served as physician to Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, and Septimius Severus. • Died in c. 216 CE Illustration of Galen with predecessor Hippocrates on cover of 1677 medical text Lipsiae by Georgii Frommani (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland) What did Galen teach? • Built on the works of Hippocrates • Advocated medicine as a science above all – something to study and practice. • Advocated dissection as both a means of practicing surgery and understanding anatomy. • Taught and fully developed the field of humorism Humorism • Galen popularized the belief in the four humors • Symptoms manifest because of these imbalances • In treatment, opposites resolve imbalances (Kleisiaris 2014) • Every individual had a unique “correct” balance – peculiar only to them (Johnston Image from wikimedia commons 2016, p.2) (under public domain) Medicine as an Art • In all of Galen’s works he establishes medicine as a form of art. One need only look at the titles of so many of his works for reference. • Medicine was a “productive” art because “you can in fact show the result of the art when the practice of it stops. ” (Johnston 2016, p.21) • Considered to be practical and concrete - in the same vein as woodwork and painting, rather than in philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Causality in Medicine with Particular Reference to the Viral Causation of Cancers
    Causality in medicine with particular reference to the viral causation of cancers Brendan Owen Clarke A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of UCL Department of Science and Technology Studies UCL August 20, 2010 Revised version January 24, 2011 I, Brendan Owen Clarke, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. ................................................................ January 24, 2011 2 Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been written without the support and inspiration of Donald Gillies, who not only supervised me, but also introduced me to history and philosophy of science in the first instance. I have been very privileged to be the beneficiary of so much of his clear thinking over the last few years. Donald: thank you for everything, and I hope this thesis lives up to your expectations. I am also extremely grateful to Michela Massimi, who has acted as my second supervisor. She has provided throughout remarkably insightful feedback on this project, no matter how distant it is from her own research interests. I’d also like to thank her for all her help and guidance on teaching matters. I should also thank Vladimir Vonka for supplying many important pieces of both the cervical cancer history, as well as his own work on causality in medicine from the perspective of a real, working medical researcher. Phyllis McKay-Illari provided a critical piece of the story, as well as many interesting and stim- ulating discussions about the more philosophical aspects of this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Imagination in German Romanticism John Thomas Gill
    Wild Politics : Political Imagination in German Romanticism John Thomas Gill A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Ph.D in the Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures in the College of Arts and Sciences. Chapel Hill 2020 Approved by: Gabriel Trop Eric Downing Stefani Engelstein Jakob Norberg Aleksandra Prica i © 2020 John Thomas Gill ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT John Gill: Wild Politics : Political Imagination in German Romanticism (Under the direction of Gabriel Trop) The political discourse of German Romanticism is often interpreted reductively: as either entirely revolutionary, reactionary, or indeed apolitical in nature. Breaking with this critical tradition, this dissertation offers a new conceptual framework for political Romanticism called wild politics . I argue that Romantic wild politics generates a sense of possibility that calls into question pragmatic forms of implementing sociopolitical change; it envisions imaginative alternatives to the status quo that exceed the purview of conventional political thinking. Three major fields of the Romantic political imaginary organize this reading: affect, nature, and religion. Chapter 1 examines Novalis’ politics of affect. In his theory of the fairy tale—as opposed to the actual fairy tales he writes—Novalis proposes a political paradigm centered on the aesthetic dimension of love. He imagines a new Prussian state constituted by emotional attachments between the citizen and the monarch. Chapter 2 takes up the “new mythology” in the works of F.W.J. Schelling, Friedrich Schlegel, and Johann Wilhelm Ritter, the comprehensive project of reorienting modern life towards its most transformative potentials.
    [Show full text]
  • A Meta-Review of Transparency and Reproducibility-Related Reporting Practices in Published Meta- Analyses on Clinical Psychological Interventions (2000-2020)
    A meta-review of transparency and reproducibility-related reporting practices in published meta- analyses on clinical psychological interventions (2000-2020). Rubén López-Nicolás1, José Antonio López-López1, María Rubio-Aparicio2 & Julio Sánchez- Meca1 1 Universidad de Murcia (Spain) 2 Universidad de Alicante (Spain) Author note: This paper has been published at Behavior Research Methods. The published version is available at: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01644-z. All materials, data, and analysis script coded have been made publicly available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/xg97b/. Correspondence should be addressed to Rubén López-Nicolás, Facultad de Psicología, Campus de Espinardo, Universidad de Murcia, edificio nº 31, 30100 Murcia, España. E-mail: [email protected] 1 Abstract Meta-analysis is a powerful and important tool to synthesize the literature about a research topic. Like other kinds of research, meta-analyses must be reproducible to be compliant with the principles of the scientific method. Furthermore, reproducible meta-analyses can be easily updated with new data and reanalysed applying new and more refined analysis techniques. We attempted to empirically assess the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related reporting practices in published meta-analyses from clinical psychology by examining a random sample of 100 meta-analyses. Our purpose was to identify the key points that could be improved with the aim to provide some recommendations to carry out reproducible meta-analyses. We conducted a meta-review of meta-analyses of psychological interventions published between 2000 and 2020. We searched PubMed, PsycInfo and Web of Science databases. A structured coding form to assess transparency indicators was created based on previous studies and existing meta-analysis guidelines.
    [Show full text]