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].     

学会辩证地认识和应用指南

循证医学的概念逐渐深入到临床医学的各个领域中.临床指南网站(www.guideline.gov)目前已收录了多达两千多个临床指南.面对如此众多的指南,我们应该如何认识和应用指南?在这里,谈谈我的个人看法. 首先,我们来看看什么是临床指南?临床指南是对现有资料和证据的全面客观的总结,是指导临床诊疗活动的规范性文件.在指南的制订过程中,临床医生根据循证医学的原则,对检索得到的相关文献进行评估分级,然后依据不同级别文献的结论给出适当的推荐意见.     

第六讲：肿瘤学研究中循证医学的应用

病人的治疗结果取决于医生治疗方案选择的好坏,然而,为获得最佳的治疗方案,医务工作者需要有可靠的研究证据支持。循证医学以及Cochrane协作网和其它多种循证资源,作为一种新的获得高质量医学证据的方法和途径,在肿瘤学研究中起到了重要作用。在循证肿瘤学领域有很多组织提供高质量的指南,然而,循证肿瘤学以及基于循证证据的指南仍可能是有暇疵的。     

第六讲:肿瘤学研究中循证医学的应用

病人的治疗结果取决于医生治疗方案选择的好坏,然而,为获得最佳的治疗方案,医务工作者需要有可靠的研究证据支持.循证医学以及Cochrane协作网和其它多种循证资源,作为一种新的获得高质量医学证据的方法和途径,在肿瘤学研究中起到了重要作用.在循证肿瘤学领域有很多组织提供高质量的指南,然而,循证肿瘤学以及基于循证证据的指南仍可能是有暇疵的.     

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,这些证据并非完美。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。     

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.     

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。     

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.     

肺癌临床研究的方式、方法、方向

肺癌的临床研究,需要新的研究方式,新的研究方法和新的研究方向。系统评估方法、临床随机对照研究方式和临床指南的方式,正成为循证医学的最重要的临床研究方法。当我们的临床医学从经验医学到实验医学到循证医学时,肺癌的临床研究,需要迅速地进入一个新的领域。     

康复医学中循证医学的使用

循证医学是近20年来在临床医学实践中发展起来的一门新兴学科.它是指认真、明确和明智地应用现有的最好证据,同时结合医生的个人专业技能和临床经验,考虑患者的愿望,对患者做出医疗决策[1].循证医学自1992年正式诞生以来[2],对医学模式的转变、医学实践的指导都起到了重要的作用.数十年来康复医学的发展,也正在从传统的经验模式转变为以循证为依据的临床实践模式.     

The Difficulty of Making Psychology Research and Clinical Practice Relevant to Medicine: Experiences and Observations

Psychology and medicine research and practice have demonstrated substantial and unique bodies of knowledge designed to both improve patient care and respond to contemporary health care needs for use of evidence and cost consciousness. At their full potential they represent a significant paradigm shift in healthcare. Despite impressive successes, it is clear that we are just on the cusp of such a change. These findings have had limited impact and penetration into medical practice, particularly outside of academic medicine and large, organized systems of health care, and there are multiple examples of such limitations in various arenas of health care. There also appear to be common themes to such examples which provide us opportunities to consider how psychologists might move things ahead. They also suggest how our unique position in academic medicine can both limit our impact and provide ways of creating continued shifts in the healthcare paradigm. This paper is based in part on the author’s presentation at the Association of Psychologists in Academic Health Centers 3rd National Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 2007.     

Memory for Patient Information as a Function of Experience in Mental Health

Mental health clinicians are tasked to diagnose and treat the millions of people worldwide seeking help for mental health issues. This paper investigates the memory clinicians have for patient information. We hypothesize that clinicians encapsulate mental health knowledge through experience into more abstract concepts, as in other domains changing what clinicians remember about patients compared with non‐professionals. We tested memory for realistic patient–therapist interactions in experienced clinicians, intermediately trained graduate students, and laypeople. Clinicians recalled fewer facts than intermediate trainees and as many as laypeople. Furthermore, clinicians reported more abstracted information than all other participants, providing the first empirical demonstration of knowledge encapsulation in the memory of mental health clinicians. We discuss how our results fit into the existing literature on clinical expertise in mental health and the implications of our findings for future research relevant to mental health care. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

From bench to bedside: Methods that help clinicians use evidence‐based practice

Despite the increasing number of evidence‐based practices and the significant use of public resources towards these, clinicians and practitioners do not consistently use evidence available to them. This paper examines methods that help clinicians and practitioners adopt evidence‐based practices. A review was done of 69 systematic reviews, meta‐analyses and literature reviews. Several methods can change the knowledge and skill base of professionals, and, to a lesser extent, patient health outcomes; namely, educational interventions; electronic methods; credible and skilled leadership; feedback; discussion; financial incentives; guidelines; portfolios; simulations; and visits from trained individuals. While robust evidence is lacking, effective interventions are likely to be multimodal; address the needs of the target group; be well‐planned; be intensive; encourage active participation; be relevant to the clinical context; and provide opportunities for ongoing professional development. The dissemination of evidence to clinicians and practitioners requires well‐considered multimodal interventions that are inclusive, comprehensive and ongoing.     

Communicating evidence‐based mental health care to service users

There is a significant gap between evidence‐based mental health care and patients, their family members and carers. To inform preventative mental health care among existing and potential service users, this review identifies effective methods for communicating evidence. A systematic review located 14 publications that met search criteria. Several methods can effect behavioural and/or intermediary change among existing and/or potential service users: namely, mass media; health warning labels; policy change; community interventions; school‐based programs; parent programs; and psychoeducation. Robust evidence, however, is lacking. Although effective approaches are likely to be founded on several factors, the review concludes with a discussion of a research agenda, and appropriate methodologies that could strengthen the knowledge base that guides the communication of evidence‐based mental health care to service users. This agenda has important implications for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers, which are also discussed.     

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。     

Towards modern post-coma care based on neuroscientific evidence

BackgroundUnderstanding the mechanisms underlying human consciousness is pivotal to improve the prognostication and treatment of severely brain-injured patients. Consciousness remains an elusive concept and the identification of its neural correlates is an active subject of research, however recent neuroscientific advances have allowed scientists to better characterize disorders of consciousness. These breakthroughs question the historical nomenclature and our current management of post-comatose patients.MethodThis review examines the contribution of consciousness neurosciences to the current clinical management of severe brain injury. It investigates the major impact of consciousness disorders on healthcare systems, the scientific frameworks employed to identify their neural correlates and how evidence-based data from neuroimaging research have reshaped the landscape of post-coma care in recent years.ResultsOur increased ability to detect behavioral and neurophysiological signatures of consciousness has led to significant changes in taxonomy and clinical practice. We advocate for a multimodal framework for the management of severely brain-injured patients based on precision medicine and evidence-based decisions, integrating epidemiology, health economics and neuroethics.ConclusionsMajor progress in brain imaging and clinical assessment have opened the door to a new era of post-coma care based on standardized neuroscientific evidence. We highlight its implications in clinical applications and call for improved collaborations between researchers and clinicians to better translate findings to the bedside.     

Suicide Crisis Syndrome: A review of supporting evidence for a new suicide‐specific diagnosis

Suicide is a major public health problem, and suicide rates are still on the rise. Current strategies for identifying individuals at risk for suicide, such as the use of a patient's self‐reported suicidal ideation or evidence of past suicide attempts, have not been sufficient in reducing suicide rates. Recently, research groups have been focused on determining the acute mental state preceding a suicide attempt. The development of an acute suicidal diagnosis, the Suicide Crisis Syndrome (SCS), is aimed at capturing this state to better treat individuals. The SCS has five main evidence‐based components—entrapment, affective disturbance, loss of cognitive control, hyperarousal, and social withdrawal. The SCS may provide clinicians with the ability to identify individuals who are experiencing an acute pre‐suicidal mental state, regardless of their self‐reported suicidal ideation. Future research leading to the incorporation of this diagnosis into clinical practice could improve the quality of care and reduce the personal, societal, and legal burden of suicide.     

精准医疗的理念及其技术体系

精准医疗模式本着患者的最大获益和社会医疗投入的高效配置为宗旨,结合现代流行病学和预防医学、临床诊断学和治疗学、分子医学、医学信息学技术以及卫生经济学和医学社会学,使传统的医疗模式走向整合化,为每一个人提供量体裁衣般的疾病预防、筛查、诊断、治疗和康复计划,以最小资源投入获取最大健康保障,从而提高整体人群的健康水平。     

Recognizing Racit Knowledge in Medical Epistemology

The evidence-based medicine movement advocates basing all medical decisions on certain types of quantitative research data and has stimulated protracted controversy and debate since its inception. Evidence-based medicine presupposes an inaccurate and deficient view of medical knowledge. Michael Polanyi’s theory of tacit knowledge both explains this deficiency and suggests remedies for it. Polanyi shows how all explicit human knowledge depends on a wealth of tacit knowledge which accrues from experience and is essential for problem solving. Edmund Pellegrino’s classic treatment of clinical judgment is examined, and a Polanyian critique of this position demonstrates that tacit knowledge is necessary for understanding how clinical judgment and medical decisions involve persons. An adequate medical epistemology requires much more qualitative research relevant to the clinical encounter and medical decision making than is currently being done. This research is necessary for preventing an uncritical application of evidence-based medicine by health care managers that erodes good clinical practice. Polanyi’s epistemology shows the need for this work and provides the structural core for building an adequate and robust medical epistemology that moves beyond evidence-based medicine.An erratum to this article can be found at     

Ethical implications in the allocation of scarce medical resources in Poland

The health care system in Poland is undergoing major change and it is possible that these changes could affect clinical research. Therefore, the situation of funding of health care is important for the future of medical research in this country. Some questions relevant in this field will be addressed. Since funds for health care and scientific research remain inadequate, their allocation raises moral, economic, legal and organisational dilemmas. The clinical aspects of resource allocation also include physicians’ responsibilities towards their patients. Scientific research, clinical medicine, and clinical research have a common denominator: they rely on trust. The physician should be a fiduciary of the patient as well as being a researcher for the benefit of the patient and for society. Some physicians and researchers, despite unethical conduct, escape disclosure and punishment, but decision-makers who wrongly allocate funds for health care and research are never held accountable for their actions. An earlier version of this paper was presented at a symposium, Scientific Misconduct: An International Perspective, organised by The Medical University of Warsaw, 16 November, 1998.