How good is the evidence to support primary care practice?

Evidence-Based Medicine Pub Date : 2017-06-01 Epub Date: 2017-05-29 DOI:10.1136/ebmed-2017-110704
Mark H Ebell, Randi Sokol, Aaron Lee, Christopher Simons, Jessica Early
{"title":"How good is the evidence to support primary care practice?","authors":"Mark H Ebell,&nbsp;Randi Sokol,&nbsp;Aaron Lee,&nbsp;Christopher Simons,&nbsp;Jessica Early","doi":"10.1136/ebmed-2017-110704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Our goal was to determine the extent to which recommendations for primary care practice are informed by high-quality research-based evidence, and the extent to which they are based on evidence of improved health outcomes (patient-oriented evidence). As a substrate for study, we used Essential Evidence, an online, evidence-based, medical reference for generalists. Each of the 721 chapters makes overall recommendations for practice that are graded A, B or C using the Strength of Recommendations Taxonomy (SORT). SORT A represents consistent and good quality patient-oriented evidence; SORT B is inconsistent or limited quality patient-oriented evidence and SORT C is expert opinion, usual practice or recommendations relying on surrogate or intermediate outcomes. Pairs of researchers abstracted the evidence ratings for each chapter in tandem, with discrepancies resolved by the lead author. Of 3251 overall recommendations, 18% were graded 'A', 34% were 'B' and 49% were 'C'. Clinical categories with the most 'A' recommendations were pregnancy and childbirth, cardiovascular, and psychiatric; those with the least were haematological, musculoskeletal and rheumatological, and poisoning and toxicity. 'A' level recommendations were most common for therapy and least common for diagnosis. Only 51% of recommendations are based on studies reporting patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, quality of life or symptom reduction. In conclusion, approximately half of the recommendations for primary care practice are based on patient-oriented evidence, but only 18% are based on patient-oriented evidence from consistent, high-quality studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12182,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":"22 3","pages":"88-92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110704","citationCount":"42","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110704","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 42

Abstract

Our goal was to determine the extent to which recommendations for primary care practice are informed by high-quality research-based evidence, and the extent to which they are based on evidence of improved health outcomes (patient-oriented evidence). As a substrate for study, we used Essential Evidence, an online, evidence-based, medical reference for generalists. Each of the 721 chapters makes overall recommendations for practice that are graded A, B or C using the Strength of Recommendations Taxonomy (SORT). SORT A represents consistent and good quality patient-oriented evidence; SORT B is inconsistent or limited quality patient-oriented evidence and SORT C is expert opinion, usual practice or recommendations relying on surrogate or intermediate outcomes. Pairs of researchers abstracted the evidence ratings for each chapter in tandem, with discrepancies resolved by the lead author. Of 3251 overall recommendations, 18% were graded 'A', 34% were 'B' and 49% were 'C'. Clinical categories with the most 'A' recommendations were pregnancy and childbirth, cardiovascular, and psychiatric; those with the least were haematological, musculoskeletal and rheumatological, and poisoning and toxicity. 'A' level recommendations were most common for therapy and least common for diagnosis. Only 51% of recommendations are based on studies reporting patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, quality of life or symptom reduction. In conclusion, approximately half of the recommendations for primary care practice are based on patient-oriented evidence, but only 18% are based on patient-oriented evidence from consistent, high-quality studies.

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
支持初级保健实践的证据有多好?
我们的目标是确定初级保健实践的建议在多大程度上是基于高质量的基于研究的证据,以及它们在多大程度上是基于改善健康结果的证据(以患者为导向的证据)。作为研究的基础,我们使用了Essential Evidence,这是一个面向多面手的在线循证医学参考。721章中的每一章都使用推荐强度分类法(SORT)为实践提供了A, B或C级的总体建议。SORT A代表一致和高质量的以患者为导向的证据;SORT B是不一致的或质量有限的以患者为导向的证据,而SORT C是专家意见、惯例或建议,依赖于替代结果或中间结果。成对的研究人员依次提取每一章的证据评级,差异由第一作者解决。在3251份总体推荐中,18%被评为“A”,34%被评为“B”,49%被评为“C”。推荐最多的临床类别是妊娠和分娩、心血管疾病和精神疾病;最少的是血液学,肌肉骨骼和风湿病,以及中毒和毒性。“A”级建议在治疗中最常见,在诊断中最不常见。只有51%的建议是基于报告以患者为导向的结果(如发病率、死亡率、生活质量或症状减轻)的研究。总之,大约一半的初级保健实践建议是基于以患者为导向的证据,但只有18%是基于一致的、高质量的研究中以患者为导向的证据。
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
Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today: Early cholecystectomy is cost-effective in symptomatic cholelithiasis requiring hospitalization. Intensive glucose control in patients with diabetes prevents onset and progression of microalbuminuria, but effects on end-stage kidney disease are still uncertain. Prophylactic platelet transfusion does not reduce risk of clinical bleeding in adults with dengue and thrombocytopaenia. A meta-analysis of positive airway pressure treatment for cardiovascular prevention: why mix apples and pears? Long-acting reversible contraception acceptability and satisfaction is high among adolescents.
×
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