I have always had trouble with the pyramid diagram because of its inverse relationship between weight at the bottom and importance or dominance at the top. Above is one of the older food pyramids. It tells us that we eat (or should eat?) mostly grains, then less fruit and veg, even less dairy and fish, then meat, and in the smallest space at the top, sugar and oils are what we should eat the least. (This has since been changed to have vegetables at the bottom, but whatevs.) But the pyramid diagram implies a hierarchy as though the things at the top are more important, or based on the things below, which is obviously untrue in this case. This should most definitely be a pie chart.
The "expert opinion" base of the evidence pyramid is using a friendly term whereas in fact it ought to be more disparaging.
A better term was coined by Professor of clinical pharmacology University of Aberdeen, James Colquhoun Petrie. He described these people as GOBSAT - “Good Old Boys Sat Around the Table”
It is supposed to describe the idea of the doctor who bases his or her clinical decisions on the "received wisdom" of people like themselves - often dependent on prejudice, myth, personal experience and preferences. Club wisdom in other words.
The "expert opinion" base of the evidence pyramid is using a friendly term whereas in fact it ought to be more disparaging.
A better term was coined by Professor of clinical pharmacology University of Aberdeen, James Colquhoun Petrie. He described these people as GOBSAT - “Good Old Boys Sat Around the Table”
It is supposed to describe the idea of the doctor who bases his or her clinical decisions on the "received wisdom" of people like themselves - often dependent on prejudice, myth, personal experience and preferences. Club wisdom in other words.