Reproductive medicine

still more ART than science?

J Wilkinson (Corresponding Author), S Bhattacharya, J M N Duffy, M S Kamath, J Marjoribanks, S Repping, A Vail, M van Wely, C M Farquhar

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The history of obstetrics and gynaecology is not a tale of evidence-based practice. Tradition, expert opinion, and the lure of new technology have frequently superseded evidence as the primary driver for clinical decision making. The proof can be found in a litany of dubious interventions which have gained widespread popularity despite an absence of high quality data attesting to their effectiveness and, in some cases, ample credible evidence demonstrating harm. As a specialty, we have relied on investigations including X-ray pelvimetry and antenatal stress tests, subjected innumerable women to stilboestrol and thalidomide, and have performed routine episiotomy in all primigravid women 1,. It is no surprise that, in 1979, Archie Cochrane famously awarded obstetrics the 'wooden spoon' for being the least evidence-based specialty. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)138-141
Number of pages4
JournalBJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Volume126
Issue number2
Early online date23 Aug 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2019

Fingerprint

Reproductive Medicine
Obstetrics
Pelvimetry
Episiotomy
Diethylstilbestrol
Thalidomide
Evidence-Based Practice
Expert Testimony
Gynecology
Exercise Test
History
X-Rays
Technology
Clinical Decision-Making
Data Accuracy

Keywords

  • Journal Article

Cite this

Wilkinson, J., Bhattacharya, S., Duffy, J. M. N., Kamath, M. S., Marjoribanks, J., Repping, S., ... Farquhar, C. M. (2019). Reproductive medicine: still more ART than science? BJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 126(2), 138-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15409

Reproductive medicine : still more ART than science? / Wilkinson, J (Corresponding Author); Bhattacharya, S; Duffy, J M N; Kamath, M S; Marjoribanks, J; Repping, S; Vail, A; van Wely, M; Farquhar, C M.

In: BJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 126, No. 2, 01.2019, p. 138-141.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Wilkinson, J, Bhattacharya, S, Duffy, JMN, Kamath, MS, Marjoribanks, J, Repping, S, Vail, A, van Wely, M & Farquhar, CM 2019, 'Reproductive medicine: still more ART than science?', BJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 126, no. 2, pp. 138-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15409
Wilkinson, J ; Bhattacharya, S ; Duffy, J M N ; Kamath, M S ; Marjoribanks, J ; Repping, S ; Vail, A ; van Wely, M ; Farquhar, C M. / Reproductive medicine : still more ART than science?. In: BJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2019 ; Vol. 126, No. 2. pp. 138-141.
@article{9168f59d021e41079194aa870215a83d,
title = "Reproductive medicine: still more ART than science?",
abstract = "The history of obstetrics and gynaecology is not a tale of evidence-based practice. Tradition, expert opinion, and the lure of new technology have frequently superseded evidence as the primary driver for clinical decision making. The proof can be found in a litany of dubious interventions which have gained widespread popularity despite an absence of high quality data attesting to their effectiveness and, in some cases, ample credible evidence demonstrating harm. As a specialty, we have relied on investigations including X-ray pelvimetry and antenatal stress tests, subjected innumerable women to stilboestrol and thalidomide, and have performed routine episiotomy in all primigravid women 1,. It is no surprise that, in 1979, Archie Cochrane famously awarded obstetrics the 'wooden spoon' for being the least evidence-based specialty. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.",
keywords = "Journal Article",
author = "J Wilkinson and S Bhattacharya and Duffy, {J M N} and Kamath, {M S} and J Marjoribanks and S Repping and A Vail and {van Wely}, M and Farquhar, {C M}",
note = "This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1471-0528.15409",
language = "English",
volume = "126",
pages = "138--141",
journal = "BJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology",
issn = "1470-0328",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111)",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reproductive medicine

T2 - still more ART than science?

AU - Wilkinson, J

AU - Bhattacharya, S

AU - Duffy, J M N

AU - Kamath, M S

AU - Marjoribanks, J

AU - Repping, S

AU - Vail, A

AU - van Wely, M

AU - Farquhar, C M

N1 - This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

PY - 2019/1

Y1 - 2019/1

N2 - The history of obstetrics and gynaecology is not a tale of evidence-based practice. Tradition, expert opinion, and the lure of new technology have frequently superseded evidence as the primary driver for clinical decision making. The proof can be found in a litany of dubious interventions which have gained widespread popularity despite an absence of high quality data attesting to their effectiveness and, in some cases, ample credible evidence demonstrating harm. As a specialty, we have relied on investigations including X-ray pelvimetry and antenatal stress tests, subjected innumerable women to stilboestrol and thalidomide, and have performed routine episiotomy in all primigravid women 1,. It is no surprise that, in 1979, Archie Cochrane famously awarded obstetrics the 'wooden spoon' for being the least evidence-based specialty. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

AB - The history of obstetrics and gynaecology is not a tale of evidence-based practice. Tradition, expert opinion, and the lure of new technology have frequently superseded evidence as the primary driver for clinical decision making. The proof can be found in a litany of dubious interventions which have gained widespread popularity despite an absence of high quality data attesting to their effectiveness and, in some cases, ample credible evidence demonstrating harm. As a specialty, we have relied on investigations including X-ray pelvimetry and antenatal stress tests, subjected innumerable women to stilboestrol and thalidomide, and have performed routine episiotomy in all primigravid women 1,. It is no surprise that, in 1979, Archie Cochrane famously awarded obstetrics the 'wooden spoon' for being the least evidence-based specialty. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1111/1471-0528.15409

DO - 10.1111/1471-0528.15409

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 126

SP - 138

EP - 141

JO - BJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

JF - BJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

SN - 1470-0328

IS - 2

ER -