{"id":944,"date":"2013-09-03T17:03:54","date_gmt":"2013-09-03T21:03:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogstemp2.wpengine.com\/?p=944"},"modified":"2015-06-04T14:24:45","modified_gmt":"2015-06-04T18:24:45","slug":"benefits-and-perils-of-following-the-literature-too-closely","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/general-medicine\/index.php\/2013\/09\/benefits-and-perils-of-following-the-literature-too-closely\/","title":{"rendered":"Benefits and Perils of Following the Literature Too Closely"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"

Don’t fall too far behind in the medical literature, but perhaps a little less vigilance is better for you.<\/p><\/div>\n

As a resident, probably the most common piece of feedback one receives is, \u201cRead more and expand your clinical knowledge base.\u201d This critique is a standard and generic piece of feedback to encourage the younger generation to never quit in the endless pursuit of knowledge. As our erudite attendings know, medical knowledge always evolves and often reverses course. Thus, the trainee is reminded to establish the habit of keeping up on the literature early in his or her career.<\/p>\n

Indeed there is merit to following the literature vigilantly. This past month, Vinay Prasad et al. published on \u201cmedical reversals\u201d in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings<\/i> journal. In their analysis<\/a>, Prasad et al. reviewed a decade\u2019s worth of original articles in the New England Journal of Medicine<\/i>. The authors found that more than\u00a0100 original articles had overturned previous guidelines or accepted practices. Notable examples\u00a0\u2014 some of which are now old news\u00a0\u2014 included the following:<\/p>\n