• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

[Requirements on evidence for system-level decision making regarding the adoption of medical services into the Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) catalogue].

作者信息

Lange Stefan, Thomas Stefanie

机构信息

Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, Dillenburger Straße 27, 51105 Köln.

出版信息

Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2010;104(8-9):642-7. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2010.09.025. Epub 2010 Oct 15.

DOI:10.1016/j.zefq.2010.09.025
PMID:21129701
Abstract

In Germany, recommendations regarding health care (system) decisions dealing with medical services which are to be included in (or excluded from) the SHI benefit catalogue clearly relate to the principles of evidence-based health care which can be defined as "the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of the current best external, scientific evidence in making decisions on a system level". If benefit is understood as a "causally related positive effect" of a medical intervention, we may directly assume that only those trials which allow for causal conclusions are to be included in benefit assessments and regarded as part of the basis of the decision-making process. In general, these will be randomised controlled studies. There may be exceptions to this rule, especially when we are dealing with particularly severe disease calling for immediate action. In these cases, an adequate justification is required which must not be based solely on the absence of conclusive or more conclusive trials. Evidence-based benefit assessment comparing two or more treatment options has both qualitative (bias potential) and quantitative aspects. The quantitative aspect can be subdivided into "precision of the estimate" and "magnitude of the observed difference". On the analogy of statistical hypotheses testing the following can be postulated: if in a comparative trial the (observed) difference is sufficiently large in relation to the bias potential, it will not rest on potentially confounding mechanisms (alone), but at least on the effect of the applied intervention as well. The analogy is limited, though, as the bias potential cannot precisely be quantified. Applying the methods of evidence-based health care requires the right balance between (appropriate) scepticism on the one side and an (inappropriately) over-critical attitude on the other.

摘要

相似文献

1
[Requirements on evidence for system-level decision making regarding the adoption of medical services into the Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) catalogue].
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2010;104(8-9):642-7. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2010.09.025. Epub 2010 Oct 15.
2
[Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].[德国药品效益评估的程序和方法]
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008 Dec;133 Suppl 7:S225-46. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1100954. Epub 2008 Nov 25.
3
Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.德国药品效益评估的程序和方法。
Eur J Health Econ. 2008 Nov;9 Suppl 1:5-29. doi: 10.1007/s10198-008-0122-5.
4
Evidence-based medicine: can it be applied to stimulation of erythropoiesis for patients with malignancy?循证医学:它能否应用于恶性肿瘤患者的红细胞生成刺激?
Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. 2005;18(3):439-48. doi: 10.1016/j.beha.2005.01.021.
5
[Evidence-based scientific analysis of fundamental Medical Services of Statutory Health Insurance internal principle assessment].
Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2001 Feb;95(2):113-9.
6
The ethical basis of the precautionary principle in health care decision making.医疗保健决策中预防原则的伦理基础。
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005 Sep 1;207(2 Suppl):663-7. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2004.11.032.
7
Opioids and the management of chronic severe pain in the elderly: consensus statement of an International Expert Panel with focus on the six clinically most often used World Health Organization Step III opioids (buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone).阿片类药物与老年人慢性重度疼痛的管理:一个国际专家小组的共识声明,重点关注世界卫生组织第三阶梯临床最常用的六种阿片类药物(丁丙诺啡、芬太尼、氢吗啡酮、美沙酮、吗啡、羟考酮)。
Pain Pract. 2008 Jul-Aug;8(4):287-313. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2008.00204.x. Epub 2008 May 23.
8
[Decision-analytical modelling of costs per QALY in the context of the German Social Law].[德国社会法背景下每质量调整生命年成本的决策分析模型]
Gesundheitswesen. 2009 Nov;71(11):739-50. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1220756. Epub 2009 Jun 23.
9
Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: introduction and general considerations.介入性疼痛管理中的循证医学、系统评价和指南,第一部分:引言与一般考虑因素
Pain Physician. 2008 Mar-Apr;11(2):161-86.
10
[The origin of informed consent].[知情同意的起源]
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005 Oct;25(5):312-27.