When expert opinion does matter...
نویسندگان
چکیده
The Roland Hetzer International Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery Society (RHICS), held its 2nd Expert Forum on February 11th 2012 in Freiburg, Germany, just three months after the 1st Expert Forum which took place in Lisbon, Portugal, in pursuit of its goals and objectives, which are primarily to provide a forum for expert discussion on relevant cardiothoracic issues and to set up guidelines based on conclusions derived from this expert opinion forum. A most pertinent aim is to promote cardiothoracic surgical education skills from beyond standardized and statistical medicine to a patient-based medicine where in treatment approaches are individualized and personalized, and specific high quality treatment tailored to the patient’s unique pathology so as to give them an optimal quality of life, after surgery. The furtherance of continuing medical education through the holding of regular symposia and meetings and the continuance of clinical and experimental research efforts and the publication of the results in scientific journals is another meaningful concept of the society. The RHICS continues to foster international collaboration and cooperation in clinical practice and scientific research in cardiothoracic and vascular surgery and associated fields. With numerous annual meetings, symposia, and conferences taking place in the field of cardiothoracic surgery, notwithstanding the hundreds of published expertise papers on new developments, ongoing researches, new technologies and techniques, surgical outcomes and their implications for clinical practice, when does an expert opinion matter? We are constantly bombarded with controversies in surgical options to manage cardiovascular diseases. What strategies to offer, what to repair, when to replace, for what disease, and for whom, seem to be eternal questions. Then again, which option gives the most acceptable, if not the most excellent, E di to ri al When expert opinion does matter... E.M. Delmo Walter, R. Hetzer Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin, Berlin, Germany
منابع مشابه
Aggregating Probabilistic Forecasts from Incoherent and Abstaining Experts
D makers often rely on expert opinion when making forecasts under uncertainty. In doing so, they confront two methodological challenges: the elicitation problem, which requires them to extract meaningful information from experts; and the aggregation problem, which requires them to combine expert opinion by resolving disagreements. Linear averaging is a justifiably popular method for addressing ...
متن کاملSoil quality of cultivated land in urban and rural area on the basis of both minimum data set and expert opinion
Soil quality assessment is a significant approach for arable land, especially in a coastal region to gain a better understanding of soil productivity and effect of agricultural systems on soil resources. This study aimed to determine the quality of cultivated soil of both urban (Noakhali) and rural areas (Kabirhat and Subarnachar) of Noakhali, Bangladesh. The soil quality was evaluated as soil ...
متن کاملThe Insanity Defense: Asking and
The authors address the main questions in the insanity defense debate: Should it be abolished? Should psychiatrists participate as expert witnesses? Is the profession damaged by such testimony? Is there a logical leap between providing psychiatric findings and providing an opinion to the ultimate question? Because the free will/determinism model underlying the current insanity defense positions...
متن کاملUsing Problem Solving Times and Expert Opinion to Detect Skills
Construction of a mapping between educational content and skills is an important part of development of adaptive educational systems. This task is difficult, requires a domain expert, and any mistakes in the mapping may hinder the potential of an educational system. In this work we study techniques for improving a problem-skill mapping constructed by a domain expert using student data, particul...
متن کاملReasons and Reasoning in Expert Testimony
In English and American law the testimony of witnesses is limited and weakened by many restrictions. This procedure is justified by tradition and precedent but much of it is not justified by common sense. An intelligent and honest witness is not permitted to make his testimony as effective and convincing as it might be made, as in France, for example, because of certain old rules formulated and...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره 4 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2012