Manchikanti Laxmaiah, Heavner James E, Racz Gabor B, Mekhail Nagy, Schultz David M, Hansen Hans C, Singh Vijay
Pain Management Center of Paducah, 2831 Lone Oak Road, Paducah, KY 42003, USA.
Pain Physician. 2003 Jan;6(1):89-111.
Healthcare decisions are increasingly being made on research-based evidence, rather than on expert opinion or clinical experience alone. Consequently, the process by which the strength of scientific evidence is evaluated and developed by means of evidence-based medicine recommendations and guidelines has become crucial resulting in the past decade in unprecedented interest in evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines. Systematic reviews, also known as evidence-based technology assessments, attempt to minimize bias by the comprehensiveness and reproducibility of the search for and selection of articles for review. Evidence-based medicine is defined as the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of the current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. Thus, the practice of evidence-based medicine requires the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available external evidence from systematic research. To arrive at evidence-based medicine decisions all valid and relevant evidence should be considered alongside randomized controlled trials, patient preferences and resources. However, many systematic reviews in interventional pain management fail to follow evidence-based medicine principles. Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements that assist clinicians, consumers and policy makers to make appropriate healthcare decisions. The complex processes of guideline development depend on integration of a number of activities, from collection and processing of scientific literature to evaluation of the evidence, development of evidence-based recommendations or guidelines and implementation and dissemination of the guidelines to relevant professionals and consumers. Guidelines are being designed to improve the quality of healthcare and decrease the use of unnecessary, ineffective or harmful interventions. This review describes various aspects of evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews in interventional pain management, evaluation of the strength of scientific evidence, differences between systematic and narrative reviews, rating the quality of individual articles, grading the strength of the body of evidence and appropriate methods for searching for the evidence.
医疗保健决策越来越多地基于循证依据,而不仅仅是专家意见或临床经验。因此,通过循证医学推荐和指南来评估和发展科学证据强度的过程变得至关重要,在过去十年中引发了对循证医学和临床实践指南前所未有的关注。系统评价,也称为循证技术评估,试图通过全面性和可重复性来尽量减少在检索和选择待审查文章时的偏倚。循证医学的定义是在为个体患者的护理做出决策时,审慎、明确且明智地使用当前最佳证据。因此,循证医学的实践需要将个体临床专业知识与系统研究中可获得的最佳外部证据相结合。为了做出循证医学决策,所有有效且相关的证据都应与随机对照试验、患者偏好和资源一并考虑。然而,许多介入性疼痛管理方面的系统评价并未遵循循证医学原则。临床实践指南是系统制定的声明,可帮助临床医生、消费者和政策制定者做出适当的医疗保健决策。指南制定的复杂过程取决于一系列活动的整合,从科学文献的收集和处理到证据评估、基于证据的推荐或指南的制定以及将指南实施和传播给相关专业人员和消费者。指南旨在提高医疗保健质量并减少不必要、无效或有害干预措施的使用。本综述描述了循证医学的各个方面、介入性疼痛管理中的系统评价、科学证据强度的评估、系统评价与叙述性评价之间的差异、对单篇文章质量的评级、对证据总体强度的分级以及寻找证据的适当方法。