Haematologists in district general hospitals practise evidence based medicine.

M Galloway, G Baird, A Lennard
{"title":"Haematologists in district general hospitals practise evidence based medicine.","authors":"M Galloway,&nbsp;G Baird,&nbsp;A Lennard","doi":"10.1046/j.1365-2257.1997.00077.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A study published by the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine in Oxford, demonstrated that 82% of primary interventions offered by a general medical team in a 1 month period were evidence based. This contrasted with the traditional view that only 10-20% of medical interventions offered to patients have any scientific foundation. We have carried out a prospective study to determine if the primary interventions we offer to patients are evidence based. In June 1996 all therapeutic decisions which were made in one clinical haematology practice were studied. We included in the analysis the primary haematological diagnosis and the primary intervention offered. Interventions were classified as evidence based if the intervention was based on either evidence from randomized controlled trials, or evidence from well-designed non-randomized prospective or retrospective controlled studies or other convincing non-experimental evidence. In our study 70% of the primary therapeutic decisions made in the 83 patients studied were evidence based. This study reinforces the view that earlier assessments of the degree to which medicine is evidence based were too pessimistic. It is clear from our study that randomized controlled trials need to be developed in areas which are a relatively common clinical problem.</p>","PeriodicalId":10285,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and laboratory haematology","volume":"19 4","pages":"243-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1046/j.1365-2257.1997.00077.x","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and laboratory haematology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2257.1997.00077.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

A study published by the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine in Oxford, demonstrated that 82% of primary interventions offered by a general medical team in a 1 month period were evidence based. This contrasted with the traditional view that only 10-20% of medical interventions offered to patients have any scientific foundation. We have carried out a prospective study to determine if the primary interventions we offer to patients are evidence based. In June 1996 all therapeutic decisions which were made in one clinical haematology practice were studied. We included in the analysis the primary haematological diagnosis and the primary intervention offered. Interventions were classified as evidence based if the intervention was based on either evidence from randomized controlled trials, or evidence from well-designed non-randomized prospective or retrospective controlled studies or other convincing non-experimental evidence. In our study 70% of the primary therapeutic decisions made in the 83 patients studied were evidence based. This study reinforces the view that earlier assessments of the degree to which medicine is evidence based were too pessimistic. It is clear from our study that randomized controlled trials need to be developed in areas which are a relatively common clinical problem.

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
地区综合医院的血液科医生实行循证医学。
牛津循证医学中心发表的一项研究表明,普通医疗团队在1个月内提供的初级干预措施中,有82%是基于循证的。这与传统观点形成鲜明对比,即向患者提供的医疗干预措施中只有10-20%有任何科学依据。我们进行了一项前瞻性研究,以确定我们向患者提供的主要干预措施是否基于证据。1996年6月,对一个血液学临床实践中作出的所有治疗决定进行了研究。我们纳入分析的主要血液学诊断和提供的主要干预措施。如果干预措施是基于随机对照试验的证据,或基于设计良好的非随机前瞻性或回顾性对照研究或其他令人信服的非实验证据的证据,则将其归类为基于证据的干预措施。在我们的研究中,研究的83例患者中70%的主要治疗决定是基于证据的。这项研究强化了一种观点,即早期对医学循证程度的评估过于悲观。从我们的研究中可以清楚地看出,需要在相对常见的临床问题领域开展随机对照试验。
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
Reply to Cavill Reference values for the activated partial thromboplastin time in infants using a synthetic reagent. A case of idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome with hypersegmented and hypogranular eosinophils. Reference intervals for haematological parameters in urban school children and adolescents. Atlas of Blood Cell Differentiation (Interactive CD‐ROM)
×
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