临床实践指南制定过程中潜在获益和风险平衡的评估及证据分级

Maria Yuryevna Kovaleva, V. Fediaeva
{"title":"临床实践指南制定过程中潜在获益和风险平衡的评估及证据分级","authors":"Maria Yuryevna Kovaleva, V. Fediaeva","doi":"10.31556/2219-0678.2019.38.4.008-017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim of the study. A review of international practice of “benefit-risk” ratio assessment in the process of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) development; assessment of its acceptability for Russian Federation.\n\nMaterial and methods. We analyzed official methodological guides of the GRADE working group and information from the websites of the professional associations, indicated on the official GRADE website. Additionally, the review of methods of quantitative assessment of risk-benefit ratio was conducted. The search was performed in Pubmed and Embase in April 2019, according to the queries “benefit-risk guidelines”, “balance of benefits and harm”, “risk-benefit guidelines”.\n\nResults. The “benefit-risk” ratio assessment is an important component in the development of CPG, however, there were no universal transparent methods for it: in foreign CPG, the “benefit-risk” ratio for medical interventions is determined by the expert group consensus. There were also identified quantitative methods for assessing this ratio, currently not used in the process of the CPG development.\n\nConclusion. We have not identified universal transparent validated quantitative methods for assessing the “benefit-risk” ratio for medical interventions in CPG. Still many quantitative, semi-quantitative and qualitative methods for analyzing this ratio were found in the literature. Thus it seems appropriate to analyze international experience further, to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of all assessment systems and to test their acceptability for the development of CPG in the Russian Federation.","PeriodicalId":18386,"journal":{"name":"Medical Technologies. Assessment and Choice (Медицинские технологии. Оценка и выбор)","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Assessment of Potential Benefit and Risk Balance in the Process of Clinical Practice Guidelines Development and Grading the Evidence\",\"authors\":\"Maria Yuryevna Kovaleva, V. Fediaeva\",\"doi\":\"10.31556/2219-0678.2019.38.4.008-017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim of the study. A review of international practice of “benefit-risk” ratio assessment in the process of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) development; assessment of its acceptability for Russian Federation.\\n\\nMaterial and methods. We analyzed official methodological guides of the GRADE working group and information from the websites of the professional associations, indicated on the official GRADE website. Additionally, the review of methods of quantitative assessment of risk-benefit ratio was conducted. The search was performed in Pubmed and Embase in April 2019, according to the queries “benefit-risk guidelines”, “balance of benefits and harm”, “risk-benefit guidelines”.\\n\\nResults. The “benefit-risk” ratio assessment is an important component in the development of CPG, however, there were no universal transparent methods for it: in foreign CPG, the “benefit-risk” ratio for medical interventions is determined by the expert group consensus. There were also identified quantitative methods for assessing this ratio, currently not used in the process of the CPG development.\\n\\nConclusion. We have not identified universal transparent validated quantitative methods for assessing the “benefit-risk” ratio for medical interventions in CPG. Still many quantitative, semi-quantitative and qualitative methods for analyzing this ratio were found in the literature. Thus it seems appropriate to analyze international experience further, to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of all assessment systems and to test their acceptability for the development of CPG in the Russian Federation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Technologies. Assessment and Choice (Медицинские технологии. Оценка и выбор)\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Technologies. Assessment and Choice (Медицинские технологии. Оценка и выбор)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31556/2219-0678.2019.38.4.008-017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Technologies. Assessment and Choice (Медицинские технологии. Оценка и выбор)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31556/2219-0678.2019.38.4.008-017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究的目的。临床实践指南(CPG)制定过程中“收益-风险”比值评估的国际实践综述评估其对俄罗斯联邦的可接受性。材料和方法。我们分析了GRADE工作组的官方方法指南和来自专业协会网站的信息,这些信息显示在GRADE官方网站上。并对风险收益比定量评价方法进行了综述。根据“利益-风险指南”、“利益与损害的平衡”、“风险-收益指南”的查询结果,于2019年4月在Pubmed和Embase中进行了搜索。"效益-风险"比率评估是CPG发展的一个重要组成部分,但没有普遍透明的评估方法:在国外CPG中,医疗干预的"效益-风险"比率是由专家组共识确定的。还确定了评估该比率的定量方法,目前未用于CPG发展过程。我们还没有确定通用透明有效的定量方法来评估CPG医疗干预的“收益-风险”比率。文献中还发现了许多定量、半定量和定性的方法来分析这一比率。因此,似乎应该进一步分析国际经验,评价所有评价制度的优点和缺点,并检验它们在俄罗斯联邦发展CPG方面的可接受性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Assessment of Potential Benefit and Risk Balance in the Process of Clinical Practice Guidelines Development and Grading the Evidence
Aim of the study. A review of international practice of “benefit-risk” ratio assessment in the process of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) development; assessment of its acceptability for Russian Federation. Material and methods. We analyzed official methodological guides of the GRADE working group and information from the websites of the professional associations, indicated on the official GRADE website. Additionally, the review of methods of quantitative assessment of risk-benefit ratio was conducted. The search was performed in Pubmed and Embase in April 2019, according to the queries “benefit-risk guidelines”, “balance of benefits and harm”, “risk-benefit guidelines”. Results. The “benefit-risk” ratio assessment is an important component in the development of CPG, however, there were no universal transparent methods for it: in foreign CPG, the “benefit-risk” ratio for medical interventions is determined by the expert group consensus. There were also identified quantitative methods for assessing this ratio, currently not used in the process of the CPG development. Conclusion. We have not identified universal transparent validated quantitative methods for assessing the “benefit-risk” ratio for medical interventions in CPG. Still many quantitative, semi-quantitative and qualitative methods for analyzing this ratio were found in the literature. Thus it seems appropriate to analyze international experience further, to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of all assessment systems and to test their acceptability for the development of CPG in the Russian Federation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of fixed combination of alogliptin and pioglitazone in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus Bruton’s tirosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: modeled impact on the mortality from malignant neoplasms Validation of Russian-language version of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) for patients with multiple sclerosis in the Russian Federation Effect of food intake on pharmacokinetic profile of the new original drug «Respoxyton» in healthy volunteers A project approach to effective resource management system in a hospital
×
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