Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Mar 1;177(3):407-419. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8254.
Inaccurate clinician expectations of the benefits and harms of interventions can profoundly influence decision making and may be contributing to increasing intervention overuse.
To systematically review all studies that have quantitatively assessed clinicians' expectations of the benefits and/or harms of any treatment, test, or screening test.
A comprehensive search strategy of 4 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO) from the start years to March 17-20, 2015, with no language or study type restriction, was performed. Searches were also conducted on cited references of the included studies, and experts and study authors were contacted. Two researchers independently evaluated methodologic quality and extracted participants' estimates of benefit and harms and authors' contemporaneous estimates.
Of the 8166 records screened, 48 articles (13 011 clinicians) were eligible. Twenty studies focused on treatment, 20 on medical imaging, and 8 on screening. Of the 48 studies, 30 (67%) assessed only harm expectations, 9 (20%) evaluated only benefit expectations, and 6 (13%) assessed both benefit and harm expectations. Among the studies comparing benefit expectations with a correct answer (total of 28 outcomes), most participants provided correct estimation for only 3 outcomes (11%). Of the studies comparing expectations of harm with a correct answer (total of 69 outcomes), a majority of participants correctly estimated harm for 9 outcomes (13%). Where overestimation or underestimation data were provided, most participants overestimated benefit for 7 (32%) and underestimated benefit for 2 (9%) of the 22 outcomes, and underestimated harm for 20 (34%) and overestimated harm for 3 (5%) of the 58 outcomes.
Clinicians rarely had accurate expectations of benefits or harms, with inaccuracies in both directions. However, clinicians more often underestimated rather than overestimated harms and overestimated rather than underestimated benefits. Inaccurate perceptions about the benefits and harms of interventions are likely to result in suboptimal clinical management choices.
不准确的临床医生对干预措施的益处和危害的预期会极大地影响决策,并且可能导致干预措施的过度使用不断增加。
系统地回顾所有定量评估任何治疗、测试或筛查试验的临床医生对益处和/或危害的预期的研究。
从开始年份到 2015 年 3 月 17 日至 20 日,我们对 4 个数据库(MEDLINE、EMBASE、护理和联合健康文献累积索引和 PsycINFO)进行了全面的检索策略,没有语言或研究类型的限制,还对纳入研究的参考文献进行了检索,并联系了专家和研究作者。两名研究人员独立评估了方法学质量,并提取了参与者对益处和危害的估计值以及作者的同期估计值。
在筛选出的 8166 条记录中,有 48 篇文章(13011 名临床医生)符合条件。20 项研究侧重于治疗,20 项研究侧重于医学影像学,8 项研究侧重于筛查。在 48 项研究中,30 项(67%)仅评估危害预期,9 项(20%)仅评估益处预期,6 项(13%)同时评估益处和危害预期。在将益处预期与正确答案进行比较的研究中(共 28 个结果),大多数参与者仅正确估计了 3 个结果(11%)。在将对危害的预期与正确答案进行比较的研究中(共 69 个结果),大多数参与者对 9 个结果(13%)正确估计了危害。在提供了高估或低估数据的研究中,在 22 个结果中,大多数参与者高估了 7 个(32%)益处,低估了 2 个(9%)益处,在 58 个结果中,低估了 20 个(34%)危害,高估了 3 个(5%)危害。
临床医生对益处或危害的预期很少准确,而且存在两种方向的不准确性。然而,临床医生更倾向于低估而不是高估危害,高估而不是低估益处。对干预措施的益处和危害的不准确认识可能导致临床管理决策不理想。