Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Aug 2012
a
Preface (2002). In Guyatt GH, Rennie D. (Eds.), Users Guides to the Medical Literature (pp. xiv). Chicago: AMA Press.
Druss, BG, et al. Growth and decentralization of the medical literature: implications of evidence-based medicine. JMLA. 2005;93(4):499-501
Step 1
Formulate the Question
Diagnosis
the process of identifying a disease or condition. Making the correct diagnosis is the foundation for making decisions on clinical intervention. What disease or condition does my patient have?
Therapy
an action or intervention that can potentially improve care or prevent diseases or conditions. What is the best treatment for this disease or condition?
Etiology
the cause of a disease, condition or situation. It may also be referred to as harm or causation. What is the cause of my patients disease or condition?
Prognosis
the progression of a treated disease. What outcome can be expected from the treatment/intervention used?
Definitions from McKibbon, 2009
Step 2
Search for the Answers
stresses the importance of using evidence from randomized controlled trials because these were likely to provide much more reliable information than other sources of evidence
www.cochrane.org
www.thecochranelibrary.com
Filtered Information
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) NHS Economic Evaluation Database Cochrane Methodology Register ACP Journal Club
Unfiltered Information
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials PubMed
Enter
obesity
Enter
surgery
as the
For better results, enter keywords separately and then combine with Boolean operators.
X X
AND
obesity
and
surgery
Enter
3 AND obes*.ti.
to narrow to
By entering obes*, the computer searches for any suffix of the word: obese obesity
Enter
4 AND surgery.ti.
to narrow to
bypass
or
banded
Search Results
Systematic Reviews assess randomized trials and provide a comprehensive summary of the available evidence. Over 800 international journals are searched to locate articles. a Systematic Reviews contain all known reference to trials on a particular intervention. Evidence is assessed with explicit quality criteria to minimize bias ensure reliability. Trials that meet assessment criteria can be combined to produce a more statistically reliable result. Data from studies are often combined statistically to increase the power of the findings of numerous studies, which on their own may be too small to produce reliable results. Authors appraise, and synthesize evidence from as many relevant scientific studies as possible.
PDF link.
Click Search
Cochrane Groups
Acute Respiratory Infections Airways Group Anesthesia Group Back Group Breast Cancer Colorectal Cancer Consumers & Communication Cystic Fibrosis & Genetic Disorders Dementia & Cognitive Improvement Depression, Anxiety, & Neurosis Developmental, Psychosocial & Learning Problems Drugs & Alcohol Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Effective Practice & Organization of Care Epilepsy Eyes & Vision Fertility Regulation Gynecological Cancer Hematological Malignancies Heart Group Hepato-Biliary Group HIV/AIDS Hypertension Incontinence Infectious Diseases Inflammatory Bowel Disease Injuries Group Lung Cancer Menstrual Disorders & Sub-Fertility Group Metabolic & Endocrine Disorders Methodology Review Group Movement Disorders Multiple Sclerosis Musculoskeletal Group Musculoskeletal Injuries Group Neonatal Group Neuromuscular Disease Oral Health Pain, Palliative Care & Supportive Care Peripheral Vascular Diseases Pregnancy & Childbirth Prostatic Diseases & Urologic Cancers Renal Group Schizophrenia Group Sexually Transmitted Diseases Group Skin Group Stroke Group Tobacco Addiction Upper Gastrointestinal & Pancreatic Diseases Wounds Group
Click Search
Scroll to article #3
ACP Journal Club is a joint online journal: ACP Journal Club Evidence-Based Medicine
Over 100 clinical journals are screened for original studies that are methodologically sound & clinically relevant.
Prevention or treatment Diagnosis Prognosis Etiology Economics Clinical prediction guides Differential diagnosis
GO>
Over 3000 abstracts of systematic reviews that have been quality assessed Reviews answer questions about specific interventions
Click Search
22
GO>
3/5ths of the records are from PubMed Relevant records from Embase Other published and unpublished sources Reports from conference proceedings
Type in
59
GO>
Click Next
A a
Includes journal articles, books, and conference proceedings Does not contain full text; access through Gold Rusha
a
83
Go to article #83
Completed and ongoing health technology assessments studies of: medical, social, ethical, and economic implications of health care interventions Aim is to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of health care
Systematically identifies
economic evaluations from around the world
Click Search
Click Expand
Step 3
Appraise the Evidence
Levels of Evidence
* Medical evidence or recommendations can vary in quality
* Is a recommendation is strong or weak? * Can you be confident in the recommendation? * Grading by strength of recommendations is a systematic approach which can minimize bias and aid interpretation * Quality of evidence can be categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low
(The GRADE Working Group, 2005)
Strength of Recommendation
Recommendations to administer, or not administer, an intervention, should be based on the tradeoffs between benefits on the one hand, and risks, burden and, potentially, costs on the other. If benefits outweigh risks and burden, experts will recommend that clinicians offer a treatment to typical patients. The uncertainty associated with the tradeoff between the benefits and risks and burdens will determine the strength of recommendation. (The GRADE Working Group, 2005)
Definition
Consistent, good-quality patient-oriented evidence * Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence *
A B C
Consensus, disease-oriented evidence *: usual practice, expert opinion, or case series for studies of diagnosis, treatment, prevention, or screening
*Patient-oriented evidence measures outcomes that matter to patients: morbidity, mortality, symptom improvement, cost reduction, and quality of life. Diseaseoriented evidence measures: immediate, physiologic, or surrogate end points that may or may not reflect improvements in patient outcomes (e.g. blood pressure, blood chemistry, physiologic function, pathologic findings).
(Essential Evidence Plus EBM Guidelines Editorial Team, 2010)
High
Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Several high-quality studies with consistent results In special cases: one large, high-quality multicenter trial
Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. One high-quality study Several studies with some limitations Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. One or more studies with severe limitations Any estimate of effect and is very uncertain.
Moderate
Low
Very Low
Expert opinion No direct research evidence One or more studies with severe limitations
Enter
EBM Toolkit
http://www.ebm.med.ualberta.ca/
Mouse over
Domains, Study Category, and select Worksheet. Look at Calculations. Then look at Systematic Review.
Step 4
Apply the Results
Step 5
Assess the Outcome
Step 6
Integrate with clinical expertise and patients values
Amarillo
(806) 354-5448
El Paso
(915) 545-6652
Odessa
(432) 335-5171
The End