Brown Morgan L, Gersh Bernard J, Holmes David R, Bailey Kent R, Sundt Thoralf M
Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med. 2008 Oct;5(10):613-20. doi: 10.1038/ncpcardio1307. Epub 2008 Aug 5.
All clinicians face the challenge of practicing evidence-based medicine and are confronted with data from a variety of studies, ranging from prospective randomized and registry studies to retrospective analyses. Unfortunately, the data frequently provide conflicting recommendations. How then should one interpret the information so that study findings can be applied directly in patient care? To evaluate the relevance of the abundance of studies published and how they apply to an individual patient, physicians must understand subtle nuances of study design and their effect on the interpretation of the results. In this Review, we examine the strengths and weaknesses of different study designs with the aim of providing the reader with a greater understanding how best to apply study results in the clinical setting.
所有临床医生都面临着实践循证医学的挑战,且会接触到来自各种研究的数据,从前瞻性随机研究和注册研究到回顾性分析。不幸的是,这些数据常常给出相互矛盾的建议。那么,应该如何解读这些信息,以便将研究结果直接应用于患者护理呢?为了评估已发表的大量研究的相关性及其如何应用于个体患者,医生必须了解研究设计的细微差别及其对结果解读的影响。在本综述中,我们将探讨不同研究设计的优缺点,旨在让读者更好地理解如何在临床环境中最佳地应用研究结果。