Suppr超能文献

“儿童健康证据周”和 GRADE 网格可能有助于提高指南制定审议过程的透明度。

The "Child Health Evidence Week" and GRADE grid may aid transparency in the deliberative process of guideline development.

机构信息

KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, PO Box 43640, Nairobi 00100, Kenya.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Sep;65(9):962-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.004. Epub 2012 Jun 27.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To explore the evidence translation process during a 1-week national guideline development workshop ("Child Health Evidence Week") in Kenya.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Nonparticipant observational study of the discussions of a multidisciplinary guideline development panel in Kenya. Discussions were aided by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) grid.

RESULTS

Three key thematic categories emerged: 1) "referral to other evidence to support or refute the proposed recommendations;" 2) "assessment of the presented research evidence;" and 3) "assessment of the local applicability of evidence." The types of evidence cited included research evidence and anecdotal evidence based on clinician experiences. Assessment of the research evidence revealed important challenges in the translation of evidence into recommendations, including absence of evidence, low quality or inconclusive evidence, inadequate reporting of key features of the management under consideration, and differences in panelists' interpretation of the research literature. A broad range of factors with potential to affect local applicability of evidence were discussed.

CONCLUSION

The process of the "Child Health Evidence Week" combined with the GRADE grid may aid transparency in the deliberative process of guideline development, and provide a mechanism for comprehensive assessment, documentation, and reporting of multiple factors that influence the quality and applicability of guideline recommendations.

摘要

目的

探索肯尼亚为期一周的国家指南制定研讨会(“儿童健康证据周”)期间的证据转化过程。

研究设计与设置

对肯尼亚多学科指南制定小组的讨论进行非参与式观察研究。讨论借助 GRADE(推荐评估、制定与评价)网格进行辅助。

结果

出现了三个关键主题类别:1)“参考其他证据来支持或反驳提出的建议”;2)“评估提出的研究证据”;3)“评估证据在当地的适用性”。引用的证据类型包括研究证据和基于临床医生经验的轶事证据。对研究证据的评估揭示了将证据转化为建议时面临的重要挑战,包括缺乏证据、证据质量低或结论不确定、对所考虑的管理的关键特征的报告不足,以及小组成员对研究文献的解释存在差异。还讨论了一系列可能影响证据在当地适用性的广泛因素。

结论

“儿童健康证据周”的过程与 GRADE 网格相结合,可能有助于提高指南制定审议过程的透明度,并提供一种机制,用于全面评估、记录和报告影响指南建议质量和适用性的多种因素。

相似文献

2
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

3
Getting to grips with GRADE-perspective from a low-income setting.从低收入环境的角度理解GRADE
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jul;64(7):708-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.016. Epub 2011 Feb 12.
6
Evidence that consumers are skeptical about evidence-based health care.消费者对循证医疗持怀疑态度的证据。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Jul;29(7):1400-6. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0296. Epub 2010 Jun 3.
7
The vexing problem of guidelines and conflict of interest: a potential solution.指南与利益冲突的棘手问题:一种潜在的解决方案。
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jun 1;152(11):738-41. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00254. Epub 2010 May 17.
9
Clinical experts or methodologists to write clinical guidelines?临床指南应由临床专家还是方法学家撰写?
Lancet. 2009 Jul 25;374(9686):273-5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60787-X. Epub 2009 Apr 23.
10
How well do guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences?指南在多大程度上纳入了患者偏好的证据?
J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Aug;24(8):977-82. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-0987-8. Epub 2009 Apr 23.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验