Occupational Health, Procter & Gamble, Whitehall Lane, Egham, Surrey, UK.
Clin Dermatol. 2011 May-Jun;29(3):325-30. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2010.11.012.
It is only by recognizing what we know that we know, and being cognizant of the things that we know that we don't know that clinicians and the health profession are able to deliver quality care to patients. Traditional learning methods can sometimes perpetuate unappraised and unfounded beliefs and practices. Evidence-based practice requires robustly conducted systematic reviews and evidence-based guidelines. There have only been three systematic reviews of occupational contact dermatitis. These inform us of what we know we know and what we know that we don't know. We know which agents cause allergic and irritant occupational contact dermatitis, and we know the occupations that present the greatest risk. We know that conditioning creams are helpful in the prevention and management of the disease, and we know that we don't know the optimal frequency of application. We know that prework creams are not universally effective. We know that avoidance of exposure can help to improve symptoms in those who have developed dermatitis, but we know that we don't know if earlier identification and earlier avoidance of exposure produces better outcomes. Most importantly, we know that there is a need for better research conducted in occupational rather than experimental settings and with contact dermatitis rather than subclinical findings as an outcome measure.
只有认识到我们知道的,意识到我们不知道的,临床医生和医疗保健专业人员才能为患者提供高质量的护理。传统的学习方法有时会使未经评估和无根据的信念和做法永久存在。循证实践需要进行强有力的系统评价和循证指南。只有三项关于职业性接触性皮炎的系统评价。这些评价告诉我们我们知道什么,我们知道我们不知道什么。我们知道哪些物质会引起过敏性和刺激性职业性接触性皮炎,我们知道哪些职业的风险最大。我们知道调理霜有助于预防和治疗这种疾病,我们知道我们不知道最佳的应用频率。我们知道预工作乳膏并非普遍有效。我们知道避免接触可以帮助改善已经患有皮炎的人的症状,但我们不知道如果更早地识别并更早地避免接触是否会产生更好的结果。最重要的是,我们知道需要在职业环境中而不是在实验环境中,以及以接触性皮炎而不是亚临床发现作为结果测量指标,进行更好的研究。