Rational Use of Evidence-Based Medicine: Why We Resist So Much?
作者信息
Schmidt André, Pazin-Filho Antonio
机构信息
Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto - USP - Disciplina de Cardiologia - Departamento de Clínica Médica, Ribeirão Preto, SP - Brazil.
Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto - USP - Disciplina de Emergências Clínicas - Departamento de Clínica Médica, Ribeirão Preto, SP - Brazil.
出版信息
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2019 Jul 15;112(6):727-728. doi: 10.5935/abc.20190100.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Rational Use of Evidence-Based Medicine: Why We Resist So Much?循证医学的合理应用：为何我们如此抗拒？
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2019 Jul 15;112(6):727-728. doi: 10.5935/abc.20190100.
2
Selecting patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome for coronary angiography: a nationwide clinical vignette study in the Netherlands.选择非ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征患者进行冠状动脉造影：荷兰一项全国性临床病例研究
BMJ Open. 2017 Jan 19;7(1):e011213. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011213.
3
Automated electrocardiogram interpretation programs versus cardiologists' triage decision making based on teletransmitted data in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome.基于远程传输数据的疑似急性冠状动脉综合征患者的自动心电图解释程序与心脏病专家分诊决策的比较。
Am J Cardiol. 2010 Dec 15;106(12):1696-702. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.07.047.
4
Elderly people with multi-morbidity and acute coronary syndrome: doctors' views on decision-making.患有多种合并症和急性冠状动脉综合征的老年人：医生对决策的看法。
Scand J Public Health. 2010 May;38(3):325-31. doi: 10.1177/1403494809354359. Epub 2009 Nov 30.
5
Decision-making in percutaneous coronary intervention: a survey.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的决策制定：一项调查。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008 Jun 25;8:28. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-8-28.
6
High adherence to therapy and low cardiac mortality and morbidity in patients after acute coronary syndrome systematically managed by office-based cardiologists in Germany: 1-year outcomes of the ProAcor Study.在德国，由门诊心脏病专家进行系统管理的急性冠状动脉综合征患者中，治疗依从性高且心脏死亡率和发病率低：ProAcor研究的1年结果。
Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2017 Apr 6;13:127-137. doi: 10.2147/VHRM.S119490. eCollection 2017.
7
Age-Specific Incidence Rates of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Japan - A Special Gift From a Collaboration of Cardiologists and Epidemiologists.日本急性冠状动脉综合征的年龄别发病率——心脏病专家与流行病学家合作的一份特殊成果。
Circ J. 2021 Sep 24;85(10):1731-1734. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-21-0502. Epub 2021 Jul 13.
8
[Management of acute coronary syndromes in the Abruzzi Region in Italy. Abruzzi Inter-societary Consensus Document.].[意大利阿布鲁佐地区急性冠状动脉综合征的管理。阿布鲁佐跨学会共识文件。]
Recenti Prog Med. 2017 Jan;108(1):52-59. doi: 10.1701/2624.26983.
9
Clinical trials and clinical practice in the real world. Do we know why efficacy is confused with effectiveness?临床试验与现实世界中的临床实践。我们知道为什么疗效会与效果相混淆吗？
Rev Esp Cardiol. 2009 Mar;62(3):332-3; author reply 333-4. doi: 10.1016/s1885-5857(09)71570-1.
10
Documentation of HEART score discordance between emergency physician and cardiologist evaluations of ED patients with chest pain.急诊科（ED）胸痛患者经急诊医生和心脏病专家评估后，HEART评分不一致情况的记录。
Am J Emerg Med. 2017 Jan;35(1):132-135. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2016.09.058. Epub 2016 Sep 28.
引用本文的文献
1
[Relevance of a guide in Quechua on rational use of medicines in Andean students of health sciences in Peru].[一份克丘亚语指南对秘鲁安第斯地区健康科学专业学生合理用药的相关性]
Rev Salud Publica (Bogota). 2023 May 1;25(3):99735. doi: 10.15446/rsap.V25n3.99735. eCollection 2023 Jun.
本文引用的文献
1
Behavioral Influence of Known Prognostic Markers on the Cardiologist's Decision following Acute Coronary Syndrome: the GRACE Score Paradox.已知预后标志物对急性冠状动脉综合征后心脏病专家决策的行为影响：GRACE 评分悖论。
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2019 Jun;112(6):721-726. doi: 10.5935/abc.20190046. Epub 2019 Mar 7.
2
Therapeutic Decisions in Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention: The Role of Aversion to Ambiguity and Physicians' Risk Preferences.心房颤动中风预防的治疗决策：对模糊性的厌恶和医生风险偏好的作用。
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018 Aug;27(8):2088-2095. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2018.03.005. Epub 2018 Apr 9.
3
Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review.医疗保健专业人员中的隐性偏见：一项系统综述。
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Mar 1;18(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8.
4
Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy.医学决策中的认知偏差与启发式方法：运用系统检索策略的批判性综述
Med Decis Making. 2015 May;35(4):539-57. doi: 10.1177/0272989X14547740. Epub 2014 Aug 21.
5
"Do GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary events) risk scores still maintain their performance for predicting mortality in the era of contemporary management of acute coronary syndromes?".“在急性冠状动脉综合征的当代治疗时代，GRACE（全球急性冠状动脉事件注册）风险评分是否仍然能够保持其预测死亡率的性能？”
Am Heart J. 2010 Nov;160(5):826-834.e1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.06.053.
6
Validation of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Event (GRACE) risk score for in-hospital mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome in Canada.加拿大急性冠状动脉综合征患者住院死亡率的全球急性冠状动脉事件注册研究（GRACE）风险评分的验证
Am Heart J. 2009 Sep;158(3):392-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2009.06.010.
7
Predictors of hospital mortality in the global registry of acute coronary events.全球急性冠状动脉事件注册研究中院内死亡的预测因素。
Arch Intern Med. 2003 Oct 27;163(19):2345-53. doi: 10.1001/archinte.163.19.2345.
8
Rationality in medical decision making: a review of the literature on doctors' decision-making biases.医学决策中的合理性：关于医生决策偏见的文献综述
J Eval Clin Pract. 2001 May;7(2):97-107. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00284.x.
9
Rationale and design of the GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) Project: a multinational registry of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes.GRACE（全球急性冠状动脉事件注册研究）项目的原理与设计：一项针对急性冠状动脉综合征住院患者的跨国注册研究。
Am Heart J. 2001 Feb;141(2):190-9. doi: 10.1067/mhj.2001.112404.
Zotero 插件