Suppr超能文献

医生对在前瞻性、随机、对照临床试验中所测试干预措施效果的看法:一项针对重症监护病房医生的调查结果

Doctors' perceptions of the effects of interventions tested in prospective, randomised, controlled, clinical trials: results of a survey of ICU physicians.

作者信息

Ferreira F, Vincent J L, Brun-Buisson C, Sprung C, Sibbald W, Cook D

机构信息

Department of Intensive Care, Erasme University Hospital, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.

出版信息

Intensive Care Med. 2001 Mar;27(3):548-54. doi: 10.1007/s001340000749.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To establish a list of therapeutic interventions considered by intensive care unit (ICU) physicians to have been tested by prospective, randomised, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) in critically ill patients, and to survey the perceptions of the same physicians on the therapeutic effect of these interventions as evaluated by RCT.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Self-applied questionnaire in an International Symposium of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, Brussels, Belgium.

PARTICIPANTS

All 3250 registrants at the symposium.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

There were 527 questionnaires completed, and 446 were suitable for analysis. Respondents were asked to list the therapeutic interventions used in intensive care medicine which they believed have been shown by RCTs to improve survival. Using a 5-point Likert scale, respondents were then asked to rate their assessment of the effectiveness of each intervention they listed and, using a 3-point scale, to select their level of confidence in those assessments. A total of 512 interventions were identified by the respondents as having been tested by RCT. Analysing the 42 interventions quoted more than 12 times, 31 were believed by the respondents to have been shown to have a beneficial effect, and 11 to have a harmful effect. Many of the interventions noted have not in fact been subjected to RCT.

CONCLUSIONS

Many interventions that have not been tested by RCT were believed to have been tested; conversely, some interventions actually tested by RCT were not mentioned. Few interventions used in the ICU have actually been shown by RCT to have a positive effect on outcome.

摘要

目的

建立一份重症监护病房(ICU)医生认为已通过针对危重症患者的前瞻性随机对照临床试验(RCT)进行检验的治疗干预措施清单,并调查这些医生对经RCT评估的这些干预措施治疗效果的看法。

设计与背景

在比利时布鲁塞尔举行的国际重症监护与急诊医学研讨会上进行的自填式问卷调查。

参与者

研讨会的所有3250名注册者。

测量与结果

共完成527份问卷,其中446份适合分析。受访者被要求列出他们认为已通过RCT证明可提高生存率的重症监护医学中使用的治疗干预措施。然后,使用5级李克特量表,要求受访者对他们列出的每种干预措施的有效性进行评分,并使用3级量表选择他们对这些评估的信心水平。受访者共确定了512种已通过RCT检验的干预措施。分析被引用超过12次的42种干预措施,受访者认为其中31种已显示出有益效果,11种有有害效果。许多被提及的干预措施实际上并未进行RCT。

结论

许多未经RCT检验的干预措施被认为已经过检验;相反,一些实际经过RCT检验的干预措施却未被提及。ICU中使用的干预措施很少被RCT证明对结局有积极影响。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验