Journal of hepatology · 2005
Agreement between reported use of interventions for liver diseases and research evidence in Cochrane systematic reviews.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kürstein Pia, Gluud Lise L, Willemann Marlene, Olsen Kim R, Kjellberg Jakob, Sogaard Jes, Gluud Christian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study evaluates the agreement between reported use of interventions for patients with liver diseases and research evidence in Cochrane systematic reviews.
METHODS: In July 2002, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group had completed 28 systematic reviews on 36 interventions that were available in Denmark. Based on the reviews, three interventions (n-acetylcysteine for paracetamol overdose, terlipressin for bleeding oesophageal varices, and antibiotics for patients with cirrhosis and gastrointestinal bleeding) with significant beneficial effects on clinical outcomes were classified as 'evidence-based', whereas 19 were classified as 'possibly evidence-based', and 14 as 'not evidence-based'. Questionnaires on reported use and perceived intervention effects were mailed to 108 physicians practising in Danish hospitals. Sixty-six returned their questionnaire.
RESULTS: The proportion of physicians who reported that they never used the three evidence-based interventions varied considerably (2, 62, and 57%, respectively). The perceived intervention effect, duration of clinical experience, employment as head of department, and university hospital employment were significant predictors of more frequent use of evidence-based interventions. Physicians also reported that they used the interventions that were not evidence-based more often if they were employed at a university hospital.
CONCLUSIONS: Considerable disagreements between reported use and research evidence were identified. Additional research on methods to introduce evidence-based medicine in practice seems warranted.
METHODS: In July 2002, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group had completed 28 systematic reviews on 36 interventions that were available in Denmark. Based on the reviews, three interventions (n-acetylcysteine for paracetamol overdose, terlipressin for bleeding oesophageal varices, and antibiotics for patients with cirrhosis and gastrointestinal bleeding) with significant beneficial effects on clinical outcomes were classified as 'evidence-based', whereas 19 were classified as 'possibly evidence-based', and 14 as 'not evidence-based'. Questionnaires on reported use and perceived intervention effects were mailed to 108 physicians practising in Danish hospitals. Sixty-six returned their questionnaire.
RESULTS: The proportion of physicians who reported that they never used the three evidence-based interventions varied considerably (2, 62, and 57%, respectively). The perceived intervention effect, duration of clinical experience, employment as head of department, and university hospital employment were significant predictors of more frequent use of evidence-based interventions. Physicians also reported that they used the interventions that were not evidence-based more often if they were employed at a university hospital.
CONCLUSIONS: Considerable disagreements between reported use and research evidence were identified. Additional research on methods to introduce evidence-based medicine in practice seems warranted.