• 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

一个实用的教育工具,用于教授参加循证实践课程的儿童保健医院专业人员,以评估系统评价中的内部有效性。

A practical educational tool for teaching child-care hospital professionals attending evidence-based practice courses for continuing medical education to appraise internal validity in systematic reviews.

机构信息

Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.

出版信息

J Eval Clin Pract. 2013 Aug;19(4):648-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01889.x. Epub 2012 Jul 29.

DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01889.x
PMID:22845043
Abstract

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Having a quick, practical, educational tool designed for busy child-care professionals to check whether systematic reviews (SRs) contain valid information would help them regularly update their evidence-based knowledge and apply it to their patients. Continuing our annual workshop courses encouraging paediatric hospital professionals to use evidence-based information, in a preliminary study, we compared the commonly used Critical Appraisal Skill Programme (CASP) questionnaire for appraising overall internal validity in SRs with a new, practical tool designed to check internal validity quickly.

METHOD

During a course in 2010, two 'teacher-brokers' taught experienced paediatric hospital professionals to use and compare the CASP and the new practical tool to appraise a Cochrane SR on beclomethasone for asthma in children by assessing internal validity only from the two most weighted randomized controlled trials in the forest plot. At 15 days and 6 months, participants then answered questionnaires designed to assess qualitative data including feelings about working together, memorization and possibly provide feedback for Cochrane reviewers.

RESULTS

Using the CASP, participants agreed that the Cochrane SR analysed contained overall valid results. Conversely, using the new quick tool, they found poor internal validity. Participants worked well together in a group, took less time to apply the new tool than the CASP (1 vs. 2.5 hours) and provided Cochrane feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

Our quick practical tool for teaching critical appraisal encourages busy child-care hospital professionals to work together, carefully check validity in SRs, apply the findings in clinical practice and provide useful feedback for Cochrane reviewers.

摘要

背景、目的和目标:为忙碌的儿童保健专业人员设计一种快速、实用、具有教育意义的工具,用于检查系统评价(SR)是否包含有效信息,这将有助于他们定期更新基于证据的知识,并将其应用于患者。继我们每年举办的鼓励儿科医院专业人员使用循证信息的讲习班课程之后,在一项初步研究中,我们将常用的批判性评价技能计划(CASP)问卷与一种新的实用工具进行了比较,该工具旨在快速检查内部有效性,以评估 SR 的整体内部有效性。

方法

在 2010 年的一次课程中,两位“教师经纪人”教有经验的儿科医院专业人员使用 CASP 和新的实用工具来评估仅从森林图中两个权重最大的随机对照试验评估内部有效性,以评估儿童哮喘用倍氯米松的 Cochrane SR。在第 15 天和 6 个月时,参与者回答了旨在评估定性数据的问卷,包括共同工作的感觉、记忆以及可能为 Cochrane 审查员提供反馈的情况。

结果

使用 CASP,参与者认为 Cochrane SR 分析结果整体有效。相反,使用新的快速工具,他们发现内部有效性较差。参与者在小组中合作良好,应用新工具的时间比 CASP 短(1 小时对 2.5 小时),并提供了 Cochrane 反馈。

结论

我们用于教学批判性评价的快速实用工具鼓励忙碌的儿童保健医院专业人员共同努力,仔细检查 SR 中的有效性,将研究结果应用于临床实践,并为 Cochrane 审查员提供有用的反馈。

相似文献

1
A practical educational tool for teaching child-care hospital professionals attending evidence-based practice courses for continuing medical education to appraise internal validity in systematic reviews.一个实用的教育工具,用于教授参加循证实践课程的儿童保健医院专业人员,以评估系统评价中的内部有效性。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2013 Aug;19(4):648-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01889.x. Epub 2012 Jul 29.
2
[Interventions to improve the management of diabetes mellitus in primary health care and outpatient community settings].[改善初级卫生保健和门诊社区环境中糖尿病管理的干预措施]
Ugeskr Laeger. 2002 Jan 28;164(5):607-9.
3
Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.基于证据的医学、系统评价以及介入性疼痛管理指南:第6部分。观察性研究的系统评价与荟萃分析
Pain Physician. 2009 Sep-Oct;12(5):819-50.
4
How to use a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.如何进行系统文献综述与荟萃分析。
J Urol. 2008 Oct;180(4):1249-56. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.046. Epub 2008 Aug 15.
5
How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?“护理路径技术”对卒中护理服务整合的影响是如何衡量的,以及有哪些证据支持其在这方面的有效性?
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2008 Mar;6(1):78-110. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2007.00098.x.
6
Effectiveness of interventions that assist caregivers to support people with dementia living in the community: a systematic review.干预措施对帮助照顾者支持社区中痴呆症患者的有效性:系统评价。
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2008 Jun;6(2):137-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2008.00090.x.
7
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.
8
The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal.Cochrane系统评价数据库中重症监护荟萃分析报告的质量:一项独立评估。
Crit Care Med. 2007 Feb;35(2):589-94. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000253394.15628.FD.
9
Systematic reviews of evidence in medical education and clinical medicine: is the nature of evidence similar?医学教育和临床医学中证据的系统评价:证据的本质是否相似?
Med Teach. 2012;34(6):474-82. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.682186.
10
Competence training in evidence-based medicine for patients, patient counsellors, consumer representatives and health care professionals in Austria: a feasibility study.奥地利针对患者、患者咨询顾问、消费者代表及医疗保健专业人员的循证医学能力培训:一项可行性研究。
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2013;107(1):44-52. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.11.013. Epub 2012 Dec 6.

引用本文的文献

1
Major discrepancies between what clinical trial registries record and paediatric randomised controlled trials publish.临床试验注册记录与儿科随机对照试验发表内容之间存在重大差异。
Trials. 2016 Sep 23;17(1):430. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1551-6.