The experience of conducting a Cochrane systematic review of the impact of clinical pathways on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs

T. Rotter, L. Kinsman, E. James, A. Machotta, H. Gothe, J. Kugler
{"title":"The experience of conducting a Cochrane systematic review of the impact of clinical pathways on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs","authors":"T. Rotter, L. Kinsman, E. James, A. Machotta, H. Gothe, J. Kugler","doi":"10.1258/jicp.2009.009009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the high prevalence of clinical pathways (CPWs), the results from published studies are inconsistent and contradictory. The plethora of study designs, settings and lack of an agreed definition of a CPW make the relevance of individual studies difficult to apply to clinical settings. It was timely to catalogue and analyse the existing evidence base for CPWs via a rigorous systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a high level of evidence for the effectiveness of interventions and are commonly employed reviewing strategies for addressing scientific questions in health-related research. This method is especially useful when research results are known to be inconsistent. Instead of conducting another primary evaluation, a detailed review is needed that reflects a summation of available research. This paper reports and discusses methodological and technical issues of a systematic review of the effectiveness of CPWs in hospitals, based on our experience with the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group.","PeriodicalId":114083,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Care Pathways","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Care Pathways","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1258/jicp.2009.009009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Despite the high prevalence of clinical pathways (CPWs), the results from published studies are inconsistent and contradictory. The plethora of study designs, settings and lack of an agreed definition of a CPW make the relevance of individual studies difficult to apply to clinical settings. It was timely to catalogue and analyse the existing evidence base for CPWs via a rigorous systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a high level of evidence for the effectiveness of interventions and are commonly employed reviewing strategies for addressing scientific questions in health-related research. This method is especially useful when research results are known to be inconsistent. Instead of conducting another primary evaluation, a detailed review is needed that reflects a summation of available research. This paper reports and discusses methodological and technical issues of a systematic review of the effectiveness of CPWs in hospitals, based on our experience with the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对临床路径对专业实践、患者预后、住院时间和医院费用的影响进行Cochrane系统评价的经验
尽管临床途径(cpw)的流行率很高,但已发表的研究结果不一致且相互矛盾。过多的研究设计、设置和缺乏一致的CPW定义使得个体研究的相关性难以应用于临床设置。通过严格的系统审查,及时对CPWs的现有证据进行编目和分析。系统评价和荟萃分析为干预措施的有效性提供了高水平的证据,是解决健康相关研究中科学问题的常用评价策略。这种方法在研究结果不一致的情况下特别有用。与其进行另一次初步评估,不如进行一次详细的审查,以反映现有研究的总结。本文根据我们在Cochrane有效实践和护理组织小组的经验,报告并讨论了对医院CPWs有效性的系统评价的方法和技术问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Developing a clinical pathway for non-invasive ventilation Effects of care pathways in Dutch child and adolescent mental health care: a preliminary study Lean Thinking and Six Sigma: proven techniques in industry. Can they help health care? Care pathways for prostate cancer The impact of health policy: the extreme case of Abruzzo, Italy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1