走出循证医学的误区--关于证据的反思

循证医学在临床实践中起着越来越重要的作用,证据的可靠性是循证医学赖以生存的基石.循证医学遵循的证据来自随机对照试验,这些征据并非完美.临床医师在采纳这些证据时须注意以下几个方面的问题:证据的适用人群,干预措施是否存在均一性,对照是否存在片面性,试验的研究终点是否与临床脱节,证据的时效性,以及随机试验提供的证据不足等.只有结合医生的专业技能和临床经验,考虑病人的价值和愿望,对证据进行正确评估和采纳,才能使证据发挥最大的效能,促进循证医学的发展.     

循证烧伤医学与烧伤医学的发展

循证医学是以证据为基础的医学,其在烧伤医学的应用即为循证烧伤医学。循证医学主要实施策略是发现和提出问题;寻求烧伤医疗实践中或者文献中的有价值证据;进行实验或方法学的评价;应用于临床检验的实践中;评价实践结果。循证烧伤医学和循证医学对烧伤医学的学科发展和临床工作的开展具有重要的意义,烧伤医学今后的发展方向是循证烧伤医学。     

循证烧伤医学与烧伤医学的发展

循证医学是以证据为基础的医学,其在烧伤医学的应用即为循证烧伤医学.循证医学主要实施策略是发现和提出问题;寻求烧伤医疗实践中或者文献中的有价值证据;进行实验或方法学的评价;应用于临床检验的实践中;评价实践结果.循证烧伤医学和循证医学对烧伤医学的学科发展和临床工作的开展具有重要的意义,烧伤医学今后的发展方向是循证烧伤医学.     

加强对学科指南的依从性

循证医学概念的提出使得临床医疗模式发生了重大变化,既往以经验为基础的医疗模式逐渐向循证医学模式过渡.早期临床指南常常是根据专家们的临床经验经充分讨论达成共识而拟订,没有系统性、科学性的研究证据,缺乏可靠性.循证医学强调证据及其质量,依据现有证据及其质量高低制定临床诊疗指南,即在综述和分析现有临床证据的基础上制定指南.由于以循证医学为导向的指南有临床证据基础,因此成为目前公认的最具权威性的指南制定方法[1].     

循证医学的辩证思维

随着临床医学的发展,临床医生面临着从理论知识加个人经验的医学模式向以科学证据为基础的医学模式转变。越来越多的卫生政策和诊疗指南的制定需要以高质量的研究结果为依据,如随机对照研究的结果,特别是随机对照研究的系统综述结论。循证医学模式要求医生在临床工作中不断提出问题并通过严格的科研设计来回答这些问题,同时强调不断进行知识更新,掌握最新研究证据以指导其临床工作。同时政府部门也鼓励发展循证医疗,因为它可通过研究有效的诊疗手段来提高卫生保健的效率。此外还有迹象表明法律决策过程中要参考是否遵循了研究证据和临床指南。知情的服务对象也促使临床工作者寻求研究证据作为依据,为了提高服务质量并且充分把握特殊专业领域的现状,临床工作者也需要不断了解新的依据信息。在众多的研究信息中,我们应对每项证据的研究方法、研究对象及观察的终点进行认真分析,确定该结论是否真实并适合我们的实际,从而制定有据可查的诊疗方案。     

循证医学对目前临床医学实践的问题思考

循证医学的定义是［１］：“自觉地、准确地和公正地应用现有最好的证据来为每个病人作出治疗的选择。”循证医学实践要求全面地从每个病人身上,凭医生的临床专业知识和有关病人的最准确的证据作出判断。１　临床医师对循证医学的误解许多临床医师面对循证医学的挑战,大...     

用循证医学证据丰富经验医学内涵——谈临床医生如何面对医学实践模式改变

从具体病例分析入手谈临床医生实践循证医学既需要思维模式转变、又要求掌握实际应用方法,即要敢于分析循证医学证据的实用性、又要善于用循证医学证据丰富经验医学内涵。新医学模式的普及将是临床医生群体认识史上一次具有深度和广度的飞跃。     

危重患者应用人血白蛋白的医学评价

通过对现有医学证据的检索,明确人血白蛋白应用于危重患者的临床有效性,为临床合理应用人血白蛋白提供依据。电子检索CNKI、Medline、Cochrane等数据库,收集循证医学证据,包括系统评价和大型随机对照试验,及循证医学研究在临床中的应用等文献。结果表明人血白蛋白不能降低危重患者病死率和并发症的发生率,与晶体液及胶体液相比较,对某些疾病无明显益处。我国应建立人血白蛋白的临床应用指导原则,使临床应用规范化。     

用循证医学证据丰富经验医学内涵--谈临床医生如何面对医学实践模式改变

从具体病例分析入手谈临床医生实践循证医学既需要思维模式转变、又要求掌握实际应用方法,即要敢于分析循证医学证据的实用性、又要善于用循证医学证据丰富经验医学内涵.新医学模式的普及将是临床医生群体认识史上一次具有深度和广度的飞跃.     

循证中医药针灸方法学分析与思考

循证医学方法学应用于中医药针灸临床试验研究,存在一定问题。从中医药针灸临床文献证据等级的确立和循证针灸临床试验方法学要素两个角度探讨存在的问题,认为应该建立符合中医药针灸临床特点的整体、动态、互动、综合的疗效评价体系,并采用适合评价针灸临床疗效的实用型中医药循证医学方法。     

循证医学在ICU中的应用

循证医学(Evidence-Based Medicine,EBM)是指慎重、准确而明智地应用当前所能获得的最佳的研究证据,同时结合医生个人的专业技能和临床经验,并考虑患者的价值和愿望,将三者完美地结合起来制定出对患者最有利的临床决策。然而,ICU中的各项治疗措施常缺乏大规模随机对照试验(RCT)的证据;对于已经实施的RCT同样存在着概念方面的错误,尤其是很多被认为已经RCT验证过的措施实际上并无RCT的证据。尽管如此,但近年来我们终于在临床试验结果方面有了更多积极的进步,一些干预措施已被证明可改善患者的预后。     

小儿巨大肾积水的循证诊疗策略与思考

通过典型的病例分析,分别从小儿巨大肾积水的概念、影像学诊断、无功能肾脏的判断以及治疗方式的选用等方面入手,结合循证医学实践的三大要素,包括利用最佳的临床研究证据、注重医生的专业技能和经验、尊重患者的期望和权利。简述临床上治疗小儿巨大肾积水时所应当采用的循证诊疗策略,以及从中引申出来的哲学思考。     

Improving the quality of medical care: the normativity of evidence-based performance standards

Poor quality medical care is sometimes attributed to physicians?? unwillingness to act on evidence about what works best. Evidence-based performance standards (EBPSs) are one response to this problem, and they are increasingly employed by health care regulators and payers. Evidence in this instance is judged according to the precepts of evidence-based medicine (EBM); it is probabilistic, and the randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard. This means that EBPSs suffer all the infirmities of EBM generally??well rehearsed problems with the external validity of research findings as well as the inferential leap from study results in the aggregate to individual patient care. These theoretical weaknesses promise to have a practical impact on the care of patients. To avoid this, EBPSs should be understood as guidelines indicative of average effectiveness rather than standards to be applied in every case.     

吉兰-巴雷综合征的临床循证诊疗策略及思考

介绍吉兰-巴雷综合征（GBs）病因治疗的循证医学证据,主要包括血浆置换、静脉注射免疫球蛋白、糖皮质激素。简述循证医学三大要素：收集最新最好的科学研究依据、熟练的临床经验、就诊病人的特殊情况,阐发GBS的循证医学诊疗决策。阐述循证医学与经验医学的区别,循证医学并不排除科学的经验积累,并从GBS激素的使用对循证医学与专家经验的关系进行哲学思考。     

循证医学与临床实践

循证医学是９０ 年代诞生的新兴医学科学。其要点是将临床医学领域的研究结果进行系统、全面的综合评价,为临床医疗实践、科研、卫生决策和医学教育提供可靠的科学证据。在发达国家的运用表明它已经对临床实践产生了重大而深远的影响,并将继续在临床医学领域发挥重要的作用。     

Personalizing Behavioral Interventions Through Single‐Patient (N‐of‐1) Trials

Behavioral interventions are typically studied with the use of a conventional between‐subject randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. In this design, the effect of an intervention on one group of patients is compared with the effect of a control condition on another group of patients, such that a between‐subject change is tested. A between‐subject design has an underlying assumption that there is a homogenous treatment effect for a behavioral intervention, drug, or psychotherapy and that the way the intervention operates in the study will tend to operate in the same way in many other patients. We review some of the philosophical and practical problems with the use of this design when a clinician is attempting to decide on a course of behavioral treatment aimed at within‐subject change in patients who are likely to have heterogeneous or unique responses to behavioral treatment. We also review the biases inherent in our current clinical practice model, which does not use any empirical data collection or design for testing if a treatment is useful, and also in the conventional between‐subject personalized medicine RCT designs. We propose increased use of single‐patient (also known as N‐of‐1) trials that employ within‐subject designs, in cases where treatment response is heterogeneous – as is the case for most psychological and behavioral treatments. Limitations of such designs include that they can only be used when the treatment is potentially reversible, the patient can act as their own control, and the outcome can be measured repeatedly. Increased use of within‐subject trials may address in many more instances the more clinically relevant question of how a specific patient will respond to a specific treatment and could introduce a more harmonious scientific approach into the way we treat our patients. We have incorporated a case presentation that illustrates the complexities of applying evidence drawn from these different designs to selecting and evaluating treatments for the behavioral issues commonly faced by clinicians and patients.     

Beyond a single standard: levels of evidence approach for evaluating marriage and family therapy research and practice

Randomized clinical trial (RCT) research has come to dominate the research landscape of marriage and family therapy (MFT). Despite becoming the ‘gold standard’ for evaluating clinical research and clinical practices, there is a growing debate regarding the reliance on RCTs as the primary basis for evaluating clinical intervention in MFT. Given the natural diversity of clients, settings and clinical problems faced by practitioners and the relational and recursive interactional process of MFT, one of the major challenges for the field of MFT will be to come to grips with the research–practice gap by moving beyond a single methodological standard through adopting a ‘levels of evidence’ approach as a framework that promotes diverse research methods, different methodological criteria (depending on the method), and evaluation based on the accumulated type of evidence needed to answer a specific policy, clinical practice choice, or within a model clinical decision.     

The need to reform our assessment of evidence from clinical trials: A commentary

The ideology of evidence-base medicine (EBM) has dramatically altered the way we think, conceptualize, philosophize and practice medicine. One of its major pillars is the appraisal and classification of evidence. Although important and beneficial, this process currently lacks detail and is in need of reform. In particular, it largely focuses on three key dimensions (design, [type I] alpha error and beta [type II] error) to grade the quality of evidence and often omits other crucial aspects of evidence such as biological plausibility, reproducibility, generalizability, temporality, consistency and coherence. It also over-values the randomized trial and meta-analytical techniques, discounts the biasing effect of single centre execution and gives insufficient weight to large and detailed observational studies. Unless these aspects are progressively included into systems for grading, evaluating and classifying evidence and duly empirically assessed (according to the EBM paradigm), the EBM process and movement will remain open to criticism of being more evidence-biased than evidence-based.     

循证医学思维方法在骨科中的应用

循证医学(evidence-based medicine,EBM)是遵循证据的医学,这一新型边缘学科的出现使传统经验医学面临巨大的挑战。为提高骨科医疗质量,我们必须克服经验医学中存在的问题,科学地应用循证医学的思维方法来指导骨科临床实践。这将是21世纪骨科学发展的必然趋势。     

Does Evidence-Based Medicine Apply to Psychiatry?

Evidence-based psychiatry (EBP) has arisen through the application of evidence-based medicine (EBM) to psychiatry. However, there may be aspects of psychiatric disorders and treatments that do not conform well to the assumptions of EBM. This paper reviews the ongoing debate about evidence-based psychiatry and investigates the applicability, to psychiatry, of two basic methodological features of EBM: prognostic homogeneity of clinical trial groups and quantification of trial outcomes. This paper argues that EBM may not be the best way to pursue psychiatric knowledge given the particular features of psychiatric disorders and their treatments. As a result, psychiatry may have to develop its own standards for rigour and validity. This paper concludes that EBM has had a powerful influence on how psychiatry investigates and understands mental disorders. Psychiatry could influence EBM in return, reshaping it in ways that are more clinically useful and congruent with patients’ needs.