Literature DB >> 10340372

Users' guides to the medical literature: XVI. How to use a treatment recommendation. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group and the Cochrane Applicability Methods Working Group.

G H Guyatt1, J Sinclair, D J Cook, P Glasziou.   

Abstract

Clinicians can often find treatment recommendations in traditional narrative reviews and the discussion sections of original articles and meta-analyses. Making a treatment recommendation involves framing a question, identifying management options and outcomes, collecting and summarizing evidence, and applying value judgments or preferences to arrive at an optimal course of action. Each step in this process can be conducted systematically (thus protecting against bias) or unsystematically (leaving the process open to bias). Clinicians faced with a plethora of recommendations may wish to attend to those that are less likely to be biased. Therefore, we propose a hierarchy of rigor of recommendations to guide clinicians when judging the usefulness of particular recommendations. Recommendations with the highest rigor consider all relevant options and outcomes, include a comprehensive collection of the methodologically highest quality data with an explicit strategy for summarizing the data (that is, a systematic review), and make an explicit statement of the values or preferences involved in moving from evidence to action. High rigor recommendations come from systematically developed, evidence-based practice guidelines or rigorously conducted decision analyses. Systematic reviews, which typically do not consider all relevant options and outcomes or make the preferences underlying recommendations explicit, offer intermediate rigor recommendations. Traditional approaches in which the collection and assessment of evidence remains unsystematic, all relevant options and outcomes may not be considered, and values remain implicit, provide recommendations of weak rigor. In an era in which clinicians are barraged by recommendations as to how to manage their patients, this hierarchy provides a potentially useful set of guides.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10340372     DOI: 10.1001/jama.281.19.1836

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  18 in total

1.  Evidence-based medicine: a commentary on common criticisms.

Authors:  S E Straus; F A McAlister
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-10-03       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  Determination of the clinical importance of study results.

Authors:  Malcolm Man-Son-Hing; Andreas Laupacis; Keith O'Rourke; Frank J Molnar; Jeffery Mahon; Karen B Y Chan; George Wells
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  Benefit-risk analysis : a brief review and proposed quantitative approaches.

Authors:  William L Holden
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 5.606

4.  Proliferations of scientific medical journals: a burden or a blessing.

Authors:  Stephen Garba; Adamu Ahmed; Ahmed Mai; Geoffery Makama; Vincent Odigie
Journal:  Oman Med J       Date:  2010-10

Review 5.  Ethics and electronic health information technology: challenges for evidence-based medicine and the physician-patient relationship.

Authors:  I D Norman; M K Aikins; F N Binka
Journal:  Ghana Med J       Date:  2011-09

Review 6.  Searching for evidence-based medicine in the literature. Part 3: Assessment.

Authors:  Barbara A Bartkowiak
Journal:  Clin Med Res       Date:  2005-05

7.  Evidence based prescribing.

Authors:  Simon R J Maxwell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-07-30

8.  Are guidelines ethical? Some considerations for general practice.

Authors:  Wendy A Rogers
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 9.  Meta-analysis of the efficacy of alendronate for the prevention of hip fractures in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Socrates E Papapoulos; Sara A Quandt; Uri A Liberman; Marc C Hochberg; Desmond E Thompson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-09-21       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 10.  Thoracic spine pain in the general population: prevalence, incidence and associated factors in children, adolescents and adults. A systematic review.

Authors:  Andrew M Briggs; Anne J Smith; Leon M Straker; Peter Bragge
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2009-06-29       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.