多学科康复效果的系统评价

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1055/a-1746-4895
Annett Salzwedel, Bernhard Rauch
{"title":"多学科康复效果的系统评价","authors":"Annett Salzwedel,&nbsp;Bernhard Rauch","doi":"10.1055/a-1746-4895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials are considered to represent the highest level of scientific evidence in clinical medicine provided internationally accepted guidelines and checklists are followed.In systematic reviews and meta-analyses all clinical studies focussing a specific predefined clinical question are collected and evaluated. The results of systematic reviews strongly depend on the study protocol, including the exact definition of the population of interest, the therapeutic intervention under consideration and, last not least, the time period of observation. Moreover, evaluating multidisciplinary rehabilitation, its specifications with regard to therapeutic content, intensity and duration, supervision and general framework must be considered for correctly estimating determinants that control therapeutic success or failure.The range of potential risks of bias arising during planning, realization and publication of clinical studies is considerable and needs to be carefully estimated with regard to each single study included in meta-analysis.Taking together, the incremental scientific value of systematic reviews and meta-analyses cannot be taken for granted, but strongly depends on the methodological quality of the clinical studies being included as well as on the systematic process of the meta-analysis and the critical interpretation of the results.</p>","PeriodicalId":54504,"journal":{"name":"Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Systematic Reviews on the Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation].\",\"authors\":\"Annett Salzwedel,&nbsp;Bernhard Rauch\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-1746-4895\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials are considered to represent the highest level of scientific evidence in clinical medicine provided internationally accepted guidelines and checklists are followed.In systematic reviews and meta-analyses all clinical studies focussing a specific predefined clinical question are collected and evaluated. The results of systematic reviews strongly depend on the study protocol, including the exact definition of the population of interest, the therapeutic intervention under consideration and, last not least, the time period of observation. Moreover, evaluating multidisciplinary rehabilitation, its specifications with regard to therapeutic content, intensity and duration, supervision and general framework must be considered for correctly estimating determinants that control therapeutic success or failure.The range of potential risks of bias arising during planning, realization and publication of clinical studies is considerable and needs to be carefully estimated with regard to each single study included in meta-analysis.Taking together, the incremental scientific value of systematic reviews and meta-analyses cannot be taken for granted, but strongly depends on the methodological quality of the clinical studies being included as well as on the systematic process of the meta-analysis and the critical interpretation of the results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54504,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1746-4895\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1746-4895","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

临床试验的系统评价和荟萃分析被认为代表了临床医学中最高水平的科学证据,只要遵循国际公认的指南和清单。在系统综述和荟萃分析中,收集和评估所有针对特定预先确定的临床问题的临床研究。系统评价的结果在很大程度上取决于研究方案,包括感兴趣人群的确切定义,正在考虑的治疗干预措施,以及最后并非最不重要的观察时间。此外,评估多学科康复,其关于治疗内容、强度和持续时间、监督和总体框架的规范,必须考虑到正确估计控制治疗成功或失败的决定因素。在临床研究的计划、实现和发表过程中产生的潜在偏倚风险范围相当大,需要对纳入meta分析的每一项研究进行仔细估计。综上所述,不能想当然地认为系统综述和荟萃分析的增量科学价值,而是在很大程度上取决于纳入的临床研究的方法学质量,以及荟萃分析的系统过程和对结果的批判性解释。
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
[Systematic Reviews on the Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation].

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials are considered to represent the highest level of scientific evidence in clinical medicine provided internationally accepted guidelines and checklists are followed.In systematic reviews and meta-analyses all clinical studies focussing a specific predefined clinical question are collected and evaluated. The results of systematic reviews strongly depend on the study protocol, including the exact definition of the population of interest, the therapeutic intervention under consideration and, last not least, the time period of observation. Moreover, evaluating multidisciplinary rehabilitation, its specifications with regard to therapeutic content, intensity and duration, supervision and general framework must be considered for correctly estimating determinants that control therapeutic success or failure.The range of potential risks of bias arising during planning, realization and publication of clinical studies is considerable and needs to be carefully estimated with regard to each single study included in meta-analysis.Taking together, the incremental scientific value of systematic reviews and meta-analyses cannot be taken for granted, but strongly depends on the methodological quality of the clinical studies being included as well as on the systematic process of the meta-analysis and the critical interpretation of the results.

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
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Die Zeitschrift Die Rehabilitation richtet sich an Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter in Einrichtungen, Forschungsinstitutionen und Trägern der Rehabilitation. Sie berichtet über die medizinischen, gesetzlichen, politischen und gesellschaftlichen Grundlagen und Rahmenbedingungen der Rehabilitation und über internationale Entwicklungen auf diesem Gebiet. Schwerpunkte sind dabei Beiträge zu Rehabilitationspraxis (medizinische, berufliche und soziale Rehabilitation, Qualitätsmanagement, neue Konzepte und Versorgungsmodelle zur Anwendung der ICF, Bewegungstherapie etc.), Rehabilitationsforschung (praxisrelevante Ergebnisse, Methoden und Assessments, Leitlinienentwicklung, sozialmedizinische Fragen), Public Health, Sozialmedizin Gesundheits-System-Forschung sowie die daraus resultierenden Probleme.
期刊最新文献
[Vocational Rehabilitation in Times of the Covid-19 Pandemic]. [What is the Impact of Early Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation Management on Outcome after Polytrauma?] [Measuring Disability in Participation Survey and Social Reporting]. [Return to Work after Cancer - a Systematic Review of Predictors in Germany]. [Validated German PROMs for People with Major Amputation of the Lower Extremity - A Narrative Review Based on the Final Report of the LEAD and COMPASS Initiative of the ISPO].
×
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