Bertelsmann Hilke
Fachhochschule der Diakonie, Grete Reich Weg 9, Bielefeld.
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2013;107(3):208-13. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2013.04.005. Epub 2013 May 27.
Health-related interventions that do not include drugs or technical procedures have not appeared very often in the German Federal Joint Committee's (GBA) evidence-based decision making process over the last years. In this regard the GBA has so far never given any instructions to the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). The level of evidence for these methods is often limited by the lack of randomised controlled trials. The available studies often show a high risk of bias because of poor planning, processing and reporting as well as lack of blinding. External validity is often limited by use of a standardised monotherapy in the study, but a mix of different, individualised methods in the field. Another common problem is the lack of patient-related, long-term outcome variables. Further research is needed to develop methods for high-quality trials and evidence-based assessments in the area of non-medical, non-technical therapeutic interventions. (As supplied by publisher).
在过去几年中,不涉及药物或技术程序的健康相关干预措施在德国联邦联合委员会(GBA)基于证据的决策过程中并不常见。在这方面,GBA迄今为止从未向医疗质量与效率研究所(IQWiG)发出过任何指令。由于缺乏随机对照试验,这些方法的证据水平往往受到限制。现有研究由于规划、实施和报告不佳以及缺乏盲法,常常显示出较高的偏倚风险。外部有效性通常因研究中使用标准化单一疗法而受到限制,而该领域实际采用的是多种不同的个体化方法。另一个常见问题是缺乏与患者相关的长期结局变量。需要进一步开展研究,以开发非医学、非技术治疗干预领域高质量试验和基于证据评估的方法。(由出版商提供)