Suppr超能文献

专科医师委员会认证与临床结果:缺失的环节。

Specialty board certification and clinical outcomes: the missing link.

作者信息

Sharp Lisa K, Bashook Philip G, Lipsky Martin S, Horowitz Sheldon D, Miller Stephen H

机构信息

Department of Family Medicine, Northwestern University, The Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois 60611-3008, USA.

出版信息

Acad Med. 2002 Jun;77(6):534-42. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200206000-00011.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Specialty board certification status is often used as a standard of excellence, but no systematic review has examined the link between certification and clinical outcomes. The authors evaluated published studies tracking clinical outcomes and certification status.

METHOD

Data sources consisted of studies cited between 1966 and July 1999 in OVID-Medline, psychological abstracts (PsycLit), and the Educational Research Information Clearinghouse (ERIC). Screening criteria included: only U.S. patients and physicians used as subjects; verified specialty board certification status by an American Board of Medical Specialties' (ABMS') member board using the ABMS database or derivative sources; described selection criteria for patients and physicians; selected nationally recognized standards of care for outcomes; and nested patient data by individual physician. The computerized searches that were conducted in 1999 identified 1,204 papers; one author and a research assistant selected 237 papers based on subject relevance, and reduced the list to 56 based on study quality. The authors independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify 13 of the 56 papers containing 33 separable relevant findings.

RESULTS

Of the 33 findings, 16 demonstrated a significant positive association between certification status and positive clinical outcomes, three revealed worse outcomes for certified physicians, and 14 showed no association. Three negative findings and one finding of no association were identified in two papers with insufficient case-mix adjustments in the analyses. Meta-analytic statistics were not feasible due to variability in outcome measures across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Few published studies (5%) used research methods appropriate for the research question, and among the screened studies more than half support an association between board certification status and positive clinical outcomes.

摘要

目的

专业委员会认证状态常被用作卓越标准,但尚无系统评价考察认证与临床结局之间的联系。作者评估了追踪临床结局和认证状态的已发表研究。

方法

数据来源包括1966年至1999年7月期间在OVID - Medline、心理学文摘(PsycLit)和教育研究信息中心(ERIC)中引用的研究。筛选标准包括:仅将美国患者和医生作为研究对象;由美国医学专业委员会(ABMS)的成员委员会使用ABMS数据库或衍生来源核实专业委员会认证状态;描述患者和医生的选择标准;选择全国公认的结局护理标准;以及按个体医生对患者数据进行嵌套。1999年进行的计算机检索识别出1204篇论文;一位作者和一名研究助理根据主题相关性选择了237篇论文,并根据研究质量将列表缩减至56篇。作者独立应用纳入和排除标准,从56篇论文中识别出13篇,其中包含33个可分离的相关研究结果。

结果

在33个研究结果中,16个表明认证状态与积极的临床结局之间存在显著正相关,3个显示认证医生的结局更差,14个显示无关联。在两篇分析中病例组合调整不足的论文中,发现了3个负面结果和1个无关联结果。由于各研究结局测量的变异性,荟萃分析统计不可行。

结论

很少有已发表的研究(5%)使用适合该研究问题的研究方法,在筛选出的研究中,超过一半支持委员会认证状态与积极临床结局之间存在关联。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验