Evidence-Based Medicine最新文献

The effectiveness of a continuing education programme in paediatric psychopharmacology designed for primary healthcare providers was objectively measured based on the assumption that training would lead to measurable changes in referral patterns and established clinical measures of referred patients. Using established, valid and reliable measures of clinical urgency embedded in to a regional healthcare system since 2002, the referrals to child and adolescent psychiatric services of physicians who participated in the training (n=99) were compared pretraining and post-training, and to non-participating/untrained referring physicians (n=7753) making referrals over the same time period. Referrals were analysed for evidence of change based on frequencies and measures of clinical urgency. Participants of the training programme also completed standardised baseline and outcome self-evaluations. Congruent with participants self-reported evaluative reports of improved knowledge and practice, analysis of referral frequency and the clinical urgency of referrals to paediatric psychiatric services over the study period indicated that trained physicians made more appropriate referrals (clinically more severe) and reduced referrals to emergency services. Quantitative clinical differences as completed by intake clinicians blind to referrals from the study group designations were observed within the trained physician group pretraining and post-training, and between the trained physician group and the unexposed physician group. The results illustrate a novel model for objectively measuring change among physicians based on training in paediatric mental health management.

A Cochrane systematic review on immediate-release methylphenidate for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was withdrawn from the Cochrane Library on 26 May 2016 after substantial criticism of its methods and flawed conclusions. Retraction of scientific papers on this basis is unusual but can be necessary. We provide a summary of the criticism that led to the withdrawal. We detail the methodological flaws of the withdrawn Cochrane systematic review and general issues of bias and shortcomings of the included ADHD trials: cross-over designs compared with parallel-group designs, exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidity, absence of 'functional outcomes' and use of clinical outcomes with limited relevance, short trial duration and small trial populations, broken blinding caused by easily recognisable side effects, combining outcome assessments by trial investigators and participants, outcome reporting bias, poor evaluation of cardiovascular and psychiatric harms and conflicts of interest of trialists and systematic reviewers. The withdrawal of the Cochrane systematic review signals recognition of previous unreliable clinical ADHD research. We conclude that clinical trials of immediate-release methylphenidate in adults with ADHD are of very low quality. We urgently need well-conducted long-term trials free of bias to assess the benefits and harms of central stimulant treatment in adult ADHD.

Published research should be reported to evidence users with clarity and transparency that facilitate optimal appraisal and use of evidence and allow replication by other researchers. Guidelines for such reporting are available for several types of studies but not for meta-epidemiological methodology studies. Meta-epidemiological studies adopt a systematic review or meta-analysis approach to examine the impact of certain characteristics of clinical studies on the observed effect and provide empirical evidence for hypothesised associations. The unit of analysis in meta-epidemiological studies is a study, not a patient. The outcomes of meta-epidemiological studies are usually not clinical outcomes. In this guideline, we adapt items from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) to fit the context of meta-epidemiological studies.

Clinical decision thresholds may aid the evaluation of diagnostic tests but have rarely been determined for tuberculosis (TB). We presented clinicians with six web-based clinical scenarios, describing patients with HIV and possible TB at various sites and with a range of clinical stability. The probability of disease was varied randomly and clinicians asked to make treatment decisions; threshold curves and therapeutic thresholds were calculated. Test and treatment thresholds were calculated using Bayes theorem and the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF. We received 165 replies to our survey. Therapeutic thresholds vary depending on the clinical stability and site of suspected disease. For inpatients, it ranges from 3.4% in unstable to 79.6% in stable patients. For TB meningitis, it ranges from 0% in unstable to 51.4% in stable patients and for pulmonary TB in outpatients it ranges from 29.1% in unstable to 74.5% in the stable patients. Test and treatment thresholds vary in a similar way with test thresholds ranging from 0 in unstable patients with suspected meningitis to 8.2% for stable inpatients. Treatment thresholds vary from 0 for unstable patients with suspected meningitis to 97% for stable inpatients. Therapeutic thresholds for TB can be determined by presenting clinicians with patient scenarios with random probabilities of disease and can be used to calculate test and treatment thresholds using Bayes theorem. Thresholds are lower when patients are more clinically unstable and when the implications of inappropriately withholding therapy are more serious. These results can be used to improve use and evaluation of diagnostic tests.