In Conversation… Prof. Sam Cortese on ADHD, Coh-fit study

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Adolescent Psychiatry ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Child And Adolescent ◽  
Child And Adolescent Psychiatry

Professor Sam Cortese discusses ADHD, research in relation to clinical decision-making in child and adolescent psychiatry, the importance of systematic reviews, and his work on the European ADHD Guidelines Group and its work on ADHD management during the covid-19 pandemic. Includes transcription, and links.

scholarly journals Clinical Decision Making About Child and Adolescent Anxiety Disorders Using the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment

2014 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 552-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Van Meter ◽  
Eric Youngstrom ◽  
Jennifer Kogos Youngstrom ◽  
Thomas Ollendick ◽  
Christine Demeter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Anxiety Disorders ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Child And Adolescent ◽  
Adolescent Anxiety

Extracts from The Cochrane Library: Nasal saline irrigations for the symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis

2007 ◽  
Vol 137 (4) ◽  
pp. 532-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin J. Burton ◽  
Lee D. Eisenberg ◽  
Richard M. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Neck Surgery ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
The Cochrane Library

The “Cochrane Corner” is a quarterly section in the journal that highlights systematic reviews relevant to otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, with invited commentary to highlight implications for clinical decision-making. This installment features a Cochrane Review entitled “Nasal saline irrigations for the symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis,” which shows that saline irrigations are well-tolerated and could be included as a treatment adjunct for the symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis.

scholarly journals Methods for the Development of Healthcare Practice Recommendations Using Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Platz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Practice Recommendations ◽  
Meta Analyses

Quality of healthcare can be improved when the best external evidence available is integrated in clinical decision-making in a systematic explicit manner. With the rapid expansion of clinical evidence, the opportunities for evidence-based high-quality healthcare increase. Paradoxically, the likelihood of any one person to get a complete and balanced picture of the evidence available decreases. This is especially true for rehabilitation interventions that are complex in nature and where clinical research is rather diverse. Given the complex nature of the evidence, there is a substantial risk of misinterpreting the complex information both at the level of individual sources (e.g., reports of clinical trials) and for aggregated data syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews and meta-analyses). These risks are inherent in these sources themselves and are in addition related to the methodological expertise necessary to make valid use of the evidence for clinical decision-making. Taken together, there is a great demand for systematic structured guidance from evidence to clinical decision. This methodology paper describes a structured process for the development and report of evidence-based clinical practice recommendations that uses systematic reviews and meta-analyses as evidence source. It provides a comprehensive framework with specific requirements for the development group, the formulation of the healthcare question addressed, the systematic search for the evidence, its critical appraisal, the extraction and the outcome-centered presentation of the evidence, the rating of its quality, strengths and weaknesses, any further considerations relevant for decision-making, and an explicit recommendation statement along with its justification, implementation, and resource aspects. The suggested methodology uses international standards in evidence synthesis, critical appraisal of systematic reviews, rating the quality of evidence, characteristics of recommendations, and guideline development as developed by Cochrane, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), and AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation). An added distinctive feature of the methodology is to focus on the most up-to-date, most valid evidence and hence to support the development of valid practice recommendations in an efficient way. Practice recommendations generated by such a valid methodology would be generally applicable and promote evidence-based clinical practice globally.

scholarly journals Interventions Encouraging the Use of Systematic Reviews in Clinical Decision-Making: A Systematic Review

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 419-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laure Perrier ◽  
Kelly Mrklas ◽  
Sasha Shepperd ◽  
Maureen Dobbins ◽  
K. Ann McKibbon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision

Developing tools to enhance the use of systematic reviews for clinical care in health systems

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 206-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison S Morrow ◽  
Stephen P Whiteside ◽  
Leslie A Sim ◽  
Juan P Brito ◽  
Zhen Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Additional Information

We aimed to develop tools that can facilitate uptake of evidence summarised in systematic reviews by clinical decision makers in health systems. After conducting a systematic review on the management of anxiety in children, we interviewed health system representatives, clinicians and patients to ask about additional information needed for decision-making. Using stakeholders’ feedback and literature searches for contextual and implementation information, we developed two tools (decision aids (DAs)), one for the health system and the second for the clinical encounter. This information mapped to factors of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision Framework. The health system DAs provided information on which patients are candidate for treatment, values and preferences, costs and resources, acceptability, impact on health equity, feasibility, drug dosing, alternative therapies, remission rates and prognosis. Health system stakeholders found the DA useful for clinical decision-making and generalisable to other conditions. The encounter DA was produced as cards containing information on issues that drive treatment decisions (effect on symptoms, effect on function, treatment burden, side effects and cost). Patients and parents prioritised the cards and chose the order in which these issues were discussed with clinician. The encounter DA was found to be helpful by patients, parents and clinicians. We conclude that the uptake of evidence summaries by health systems can be enhanced by developing tools that provide contextual and implementation information about clinical care. A dual approach addressing health system stakeholders as well as clinicians and patients is likely feasible and helpful.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document