Suppr超能文献

教育家庭医生改变检查医嘱的干预措施:随机对照试验的系统评价

Interventions to Educate Family Physicians to Change Test Ordering: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

作者信息

Thomas Roger Edmund, Vaska Marcus, Naugler Christopher, Chowdhury Tanvir Turin

机构信息

Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Knowledge Resource Service, Holy Cross Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

出版信息

Acad Pathol. 2016 Mar 4;3:2374289516633476. doi: 10.1177/2374289516633476. eCollection 2016 Jan-Dec.

Abstract

The purpose is to systematically review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to change family physicians' laboratory test-ordering. We searched 15 electronic databases (no language/date limitations). We identified 29 RCTs (4,111 physicians, 175,563 patients). Six studies specifically focused on reducing unnecessary tests, 23 on increasing screening tests. Using Cochrane methodology 48.5% of studies were low risk-of-bias for randomisation, 7% concealment of randomisation, 17% blinding of participants/personnel, 21% blinding outcome assessors, 27.5% attrition, 93% selective reporting. Only six studies were low risk for both randomisation and attrition. Twelve studies performed a power computation, three an intention-to-treat analysis and 13 statistically controlled clustering. Unweighted averages were computed to compare intervention/control groups for tests assessed by >5 studies. The results were that fourteen studies assessed lipids (average 10% more tests than control), 14 diabetes (average 8% > control), 5 cervical smears, 2 INR, one each thyroid, fecal occult-blood, cotinine, throat-swabs, testing after prescribing, and urine-cultures. Six studies aimed to decrease test groups (average decrease 18%), and two to increase test groups. Intervention strategies: one study used education (no change): two feedback (one 5% increase, one 27% desired decrease); eight education + feedback (average increase in desired direction >control 4.9%), ten system change (average increase 14.9%), one system change + feedback (increases 5-44%), three education + system change (average increase 6%), three education + system change + feedback (average 7.7% increase), one delayed testing. The conclusions are that only six RCTs were assessed at low risk of bias from both randomisation and attrition. Nevertheless, despite methodological shortcomings studies that found large changes (e.g. >20%) probably obtained real change.

摘要

目的是系统评价随机对照试验(RCT),以改变家庭医生的实验室检查医嘱。我们检索了15个电子数据库(无语言/日期限制)。我们确定了29项RCT(4111名医生,175563名患者)。六项研究专门关注减少不必要的检查,23项关注增加筛查检查。采用Cochrane方法,48.5%的研究随机化偏倚风险低,7%为随机化隐藏,17%为参与者/人员盲法,21%为结果评估者盲法,27.5%为失访,93%为选择性报告。只有六项研究随机化和失访风险均低。十二项研究进行了功效计算,三项进行了意向性分析,13项进行了统计控制聚类。计算未加权平均值,以比较干预组/对照组中由超过5项研究评估的检查。结果是,十四项研究评估了血脂(平均检查比对照组多10%),14项评估了糖尿病(平均比对照组多8%),5项评估了宫颈涂片,2项评估了国际标准化比值(INR),各1项评估了甲状腺、粪便潜血、可替宁、咽拭子、开处方后检查和尿培养。六项研究旨在减少检查组(平均减少18%),两项旨在增加检查组。干预策略:一项研究采用教育(无变化);两项采用反馈(一项增加5%,一项期望减少27%);八项采用教育+反馈(期望方向平均增加>对照组4.9%),十项采用系统改变(平均增加14.9%),一项采用系统改变+反馈(增加5%-44%),三项采用教育+系统改变(平均增加6%),三项采用教育+系统改变+反馈(平均增加7.7%),一项采用延迟检查。结论是,只有六项RCT在随机化和失访方面的偏倚风险评估为低。然而,尽管存在方法学缺陷,但发现有较大变化(如>20%)的研究可能实现了真正的改变。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3742/5497906/f47f956736f8/10.1177_2374289516633476-fig1.jpg

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