Davis Dave, Bordage Georges, Moores Lisa K, Bennett Nancy, Marinopoulos Spyridon S, Mazmanian Paul E, Dorman Todd, McCrory Douglas
Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC 20037-1127, USA.
Chest. 2009 Mar;135(3 Suppl):8S-16S. doi: 10.1378/chest.08-2513.
By its synthesis of a selected portion of the continuing medical education (CME) literature, the evidence-based practice center (EPC) review discovered several major issues in primary study design and in the systematic review process of CME studies. Through this process, the review speaks to the need for clarity in designing, reporting and synthesizing CME trials and provides an opportunity to advance the research agenda in this field.
The evidence-based guideline (EBG) committee reviewed the methods section of the EPC report and these guidelines in detail, commenting on the search and review process and on the nature of the primary literature and the definitions used within it, comparing these to other published standardized measures.
Although the EBG committee noted much strength in the EPC review, limitations of the primary literature and the review methodology were identified and defined. These strengths and limitations hold implications for further research in this area.
Noting these limitations and in order to move the field forward, the EBG committee proposes a standard nomenclature of terms in common use in CME; a more rigorous process of searching, distilling, and synthesizing the primary literature in this area; and a common format on which to base the development and description of future trials of CME interventions.
通过对继续医学教育（CME）文献选定部分的综合分析，循证实践中心（EPC）的综述发现了CME研究的原始研究设计和系统综述过程中的几个主要问题。通过这一过程，该综述表明在设计、报告和综合CME试验时需要清晰明确，并提供了推进该领域研究议程的机会。
循证指南（EBG）委员会详细审查了EPC报告的方法部分以及这些指南，对检索和综述过程、原始文献的性质及其所使用的定义发表了评论，并将其与其他已发表的标准化措施进行了比较。
尽管EBG委员会在EPC综述中指出了许多优点，但也确定并定义了原始文献和综述方法的局限性。这些优点和局限性对该领域的进一步研究具有启示意义。
注意到这些局限性，为推动该领域向前发展，EBG委员会提出了CME常用术语的标准命名法；对该领域原始文献进行检索、提炼和综合的更严格过程；以及未来CME干预试验开发和描述所依据的通用格式。
