Division of Oral Biology & Medicine, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles CA and Dental Group of Sherman Oaks, Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2008 Jun;5(2):123-8. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nem123.
This article discusses some of the misconceptions of evidence-based research in the health sciences. It proposes that since not all treatments in medicine and dentistry can be evidence-based, clinical applications of the evidence-based process should become a specialty. The case is particularly evident in dentistry. Therefore dentistry is taken in this article as a model for discussion. We propose that to approach dentistry from the viewpoint of the patient-oriented evidence that matters (POEM) is perfectly acceptable so far as we also engage in the process of research evaluation and appraisal in dentistry (READ). We distinguish between dentistry based on the evidence, and evidence-based dentistry. We argue that when invoking an evidence-based approach to dentistry or medicine, it is not sufficient to establish the 'levels of evidence', but rather that all evidence-based clinical intervention must undergo the stringent process of evidence-based research so that clinical practice guidelines be revised based on the best available evidence.
本文讨论了健康科学领域中一些对循证研究的误解。它提出,由于医学和牙科学中的并非所有治疗方法都能基于证据,因此循证过程的临床应用应该成为一个专业领域。这种情况在牙科学中尤为明显。因此,本文以牙科学为例进行讨论。我们提出,从对患者重要的证据(POEM)的角度来探讨牙科学是完全可以接受的,只要我们也参与牙科学的研究评估和评价(READ)过程。我们区分了基于证据的牙科学和循证牙科学。我们认为,当在牙科学或医学中采用循证方法时,仅仅确定“证据水平”是不够的,而是所有循证临床干预都必须经过严格的循证研究过程,以便根据最佳现有证据修订临床实践指南。