Literature DB >> 28554944

How good is the evidence to support primary care practice?

Mark H Ebell1, Randi Sokol2, Aaron Lee1, Christopher Simons3, Jessica Early2.   

Abstract

Our goal was to determine the extent to which recommendations for primary care practice are informed by high-quality research-based evidence, and the extent to which they are based on evidence of improved health outcomes (patient-oriented evidence). As a substrate for study, we used Essential Evidence, an online, evidence-based, medical reference for generalists. Each of the 721 chapters makes overall recommendations for practice that are graded A, B or C using the Strength of Recommendations Taxonomy (SORT). SORT A represents consistent and good quality patient-oriented evidence; SORT B is inconsistent or limited quality patient-oriented evidence and SORT C is expert opinion, usual practice or recommendations relying on surrogate or intermediate outcomes. Pairs of researchers abstracted the evidence ratings for each chapter in tandem, with discrepancies resolved by the lead author. Of 3251 overall recommendations, 18% were graded 'A', 34% were 'B' and 49% were 'C'. Clinical categories with the most 'A' recommendations were pregnancy and childbirth, cardiovascular, and psychiatric; those with the least were haematological, musculoskeletal and rheumatological, and poisoning and toxicity. 'A' level recommendations were most common for therapy and least common for diagnosis. Only 51% of recommendations are based on studies reporting patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, quality of life or symptom reduction. In conclusion, approximately half of the recommendations for primary care practice are based on patient-oriented evidence, but only 18% are based on patient-oriented evidence from consistent, high-quality studies. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health services administration & management; Primary care; Quality in health care

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28554944     DOI: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110704

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evid Based Med        ISSN: 1356-5524


  5 in total

1.  Building a Learning Health System: Creating an Analytical Workflow for Evidence Generation to Inform Institutional Clinical Care Guidelines.

Authors:  Dev Dash; Arjun Gokhale; Birju S Patel; Alison Callahan; Jose Posada; Gomathi Krishnan; William Collins; Ron Li; Kevin Schulman; Lily Ren; Nigam H Shah
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 2.342

2.  Broad Medical Uncertainty and the ethical obligation for openness.

Authors:  Rebecca C H Brown; Mícheál de Barra; Brian D Earp
Journal:  Synthese       Date:  2022-04-10       Impact factor: 2.908

3.  Rational decision making in medicine: Implications for overuse and underuse.

Authors:  Benjamin Djulbegovic; Shira Elqayam; William Dale
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Assessing risk of bias: a proposal for a unified framework for observational studies and randomized trials.

Authors:  Hendrika J Luijendijk; Matthew J Page; Huibert Burger; Xander Koolman
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices towards Diabetic Retinopathy among Primary Care Physicians of Saudi Arabia: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Ashokkumar Thirunavukkarasu; Abdulmohsen Khaled Almulhim; Faisal Ahmed Albalawi; Ziyad Muharib Alruwaili; Ola Ali Almajed; Sultan Hamoud Alruwaili; Malek Mohammed Almugharriq; Abdulaziz Saud Alruwaili; Malak Khalid Alkuwaykibi
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-08
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.