Suppr超能文献

临床下背痛指南:对三大主要指南中一致性和不一致性的批判性回顾。

Clinical guidelines for low back pain: A critical review of consensus and inconsistencies across three major guidelines.

机构信息

Health Economics Research Group, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Department of Clinical Sciences, Brunel University London, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, United Kingdom.

Department of Orthopaedics, Duke University, 2200 W. Main St. Ste B230, Durham, NC 27705, USA.

出版信息

Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2016 Dec;30(6):968-980. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2017.05.001. Epub 2017 Jun 9.

Abstract

Given the scale and cost of the low back pain problem, it is imperative that healthcare professionals involved in the care of people with low back pain have access to up-to-date, evidence-based information to assist them in treatment decision-making. Clinical guidelines exist to promote the consistent best practice, to reduce unwarranted variation and to reduce the use of low-value interventions in patient care. Recent decades have witnessed the publication of a number of such guidelines. In this narrative review, we consider three selected international interdisciplinary guidelines for the management of low back pain. Guideline development methods, consistent recommendations and inconsistencies between these guidelines are critically discussed.

摘要

鉴于下背痛问题的规模和成本,参与下背痛患者护理的医疗保健专业人员必须获得最新的基于证据的信息,以帮助他们做出治疗决策。临床指南的存在是为了促进一致的最佳实践,减少不必要的差异,并减少低价值干预措施在患者护理中的使用。近几十年来,已经发布了许多这样的指南。在这篇叙述性评论中,我们考虑了三种用于管理下背痛的国际跨学科指南。批判性地讨论了指南制定方法、一致的建议以及这些指南之间的不一致。

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