Chou Roger
The Oregon Evidence-Based Practice Center, The Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Pain Pract. 2005 Sep;5(3):153-78. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2005.05302.x.
Low back pain has long been described as a challenge for both primary care physicians and specialists. Management of low back pain has also been criticized as frequently arbitrary, inappropriate, or ineffective. Contributing factors have been an inadequate evidence base and a need for more rigorous appraisals of the available literature. Evidence-based medicine, an approach to clinical problem solving, is predicated on the premise that high-quality health care will result from practices consistent with the best evidence. In contrast to the traditional medical paradigm that placed a heavy reliance on expert opinion, authority, and unsystematic clinical observations, evidence-based medicine emphasizes the need for rigorous critical appraisals of the scientific literature to inform medical decision making. Evidence-based medicine places strong weight on the requirement for valid studies, particularly randomized controlled trials, to appropriately evaluate the effectiveness of health care interventions. Because of the rapidly increasing volume of medical literature, however, most clinicians are unable to keep up-to-date with all the new data. Two types of preprocessed evidence that can aid busy clinicians in medical decision making are systematic reviews and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Like primary studies, systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines must adhere to high methodologic standards to reduce error and bias. As in other areas of medicine, the approach to the management of low back pain has been positively affected by the availability of more clinical trials and better use of critical appraisal techniques to evaluate and apply research findings. In addition to more rigorous primary studies, an increasing number of high-quality systematic reviews and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for low back pain are also available. Although some research gaps and methodologic shortcomings persist, the richer evidence base has greatly improved our understanding of what does and does not work for low back pain. Despite these advances, the best available evidence often does not inform everyday clinical decisions for low back pain. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that adherence to evidence-based practice will help improve low back pain patient outcomes and reduce arbitrary variations in care. This article reviews basic principles of evidence-based medicine, discusses evidence-based medicine in the context of low back pain management, and summarizes some useful evidence-based medicine resources.
长期以来,下背痛一直被视为初级保健医生和专科医生面临的一项挑战。下背痛的管理也受到批评,认为其往往随意、不恰当或无效。造成这种情况的因素包括证据基础不足,以及需要对现有文献进行更严格的评估。循证医学是一种临床问题解决方法,其前提是高质量的医疗保健将源于与最佳证据相一致的实践。与传统医学范式严重依赖专家意见、权威和非系统的临床观察不同,循证医学强调需要对科学文献进行严格的批判性评估,以为医疗决策提供依据。循证医学非常重视有效研究的要求,特别是随机对照试验,以适当评估医疗保健干预措施的有效性。然而,由于医学文献数量迅速增加,大多数临床医生无法跟上所有新数据。两种有助于忙碌的临床医生进行医疗决策的预处理证据是系统评价和循证临床实践指南。与原始研究一样,系统评价和临床实践指南必须遵循高方法学标准,以减少误差和偏差。与医学的其他领域一样,下背痛的管理方法也受到更多临床试验的可用性以及更好地使用批判性评估技术来评估和应用研究结果的积极影响。除了更严格的原始研究外,现在也有越来越多关于下背痛的高质量系统评价和循证临床实践指南。尽管存在一些研究空白和方法学缺陷,但更丰富的证据基础极大地增进了我们对下背痛有效和无效治疗方法的理解。尽管有这些进展,但现有的最佳证据往往无法为下背痛的日常临床决策提供依据。尽管如此,人们普遍认为,坚持循证实践将有助于改善下背痛患者的治疗效果,并减少护理中的随意差异。本文回顾了循证医学的基本原则,讨论了下背痛管理背景下的循证医学,并总结了一些有用的循证医学资源。