Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P
MRC Health Services Research Collaboration, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, UK.
Lancet. 2000 Jun 10;355(9220):2037-40. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02351-5.
Previous studies have suggested that research agendas can be biased. To determine whether there is a mismatch between available research evidence and the research preferences of consumers we examined research on interventions for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee joint.
We searched published and unpublished studies on interventions in this condition to assess the structure of the evidence base. Focus groups and a postal survey of research consumers were then undertaken to examine their views and research priorities.
Review of published and unpublished reports showed that the evidence base was dominated by studies of pharmaceutical (550, 59%) and surgical (238, 26%) interventions. 24 (36%) of 67 survey respondents ranked knee replacement as the highest priority for research, whereas 14 (21%) chose education and advice as their first choice.
There is a mismatch between the amount of published work on different interventions, and the degree of interest of consumers. We suggest that broadening of the research agenda would be more in line with current treatment patterns and consumer views. If this mismatch is not addressed, then evidence-based medicine will not be representative of consumer needs.
先前的研究表明研究议程可能存在偏差。为了确定现有研究证据与消费者的研究偏好之间是否存在不匹配，我们对膝关节骨关节炎治疗干预措施的研究进行了调查。
我们检索了已发表和未发表的关于该病症干预措施的研究，以评估证据基础的结构。随后开展了焦点小组讨论和对研究消费者的邮寄调查，以了解他们的观点和研究重点。
对已发表和未发表报告的审查表明，证据基础主要由药物（550项，59%）和手术（238项，26%）干预研究主导。67名调查受访者中有24人（36%）将膝关节置换列为研究的最高优先事项，而14人（21%）将教育和建议作为首选。
不同干预措施的已发表研究数量与消费者的兴趣程度之间存在不匹配。我们建议扩大研究议程将更符合当前的治疗模式和消费者观点。如果这种不匹配得不到解决，那么循证医学将无法代表消费者的需求。
