scholarly journals From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence- Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance~!2009-10-24~!2009-10-03~!2010-07-16~!

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Kung
2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Kung ◽  
Francesco Chiappelli ◽  
Olivia O Cajulis ◽  
Raisa Avezova ◽  
George Kossan ◽  
...  

Research synthesis seeks to gather, examine and evaluate systematically research reports that converge toward answering a carefully crafted research question, which states the problem patient population, the intervention under consideration, and the clinical outcome of interest. The product of the process of systematically reviewing the research literature pertinent to the research question thusly stated is the “systematic review”. The objective and transparent approach of the systematic review aims to minimize bias. Most systematic reviews yield quantitative analyses of measurable data (e.g., acceptable sampling analysis, meta-analysis). Systematic reviews may also be qualitative, while adhering to accepted standards for gathering, evaluating, and reporting evidence. Systematic reviews provide highly rated recommendations for evidence-based health care; but, systematic reviews are not equally reliable and successful in minimizing bias. Several instruments are available to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was derived from factor analysis of the most relevant items among them. AMSTAR consists of eleven items with good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews, has been widely accepted and utilized, and has gained in reliability, reproducibility. AMSTAR does not produce quantifiable assessments of systematic review quality and clinical relevance. In this study, we have revised the AMSTAR instrument, detracting nothing from its content and construct validity, and utilizing the very criteria employed in the development of the original tool, with the aim of yielding an instrument that can quantify the quality of systematic reviews. We present validation data of the revised AMSTAR (R-AMSTAR), and discuss its implications and application in evidence-based health care.


Author(s):  
Yamila M. El-Khayat

Epistemonikos.org is a database of resources that provides evidence-based health care information in a central depository to assist people in making decisions for clinical or health policy questions. This database is provided free of charge and is put together by a nonprofit organization based out of Santiago, Chile, formed by individuals associated with different institutions. The database is updated continuously, by systematically searching different databases and by utilizing web technologies to store the information. The purpose and goal of this resource is to provide quick access to systematic reviews and broad combinations of reviews and primary studies in health care. Additionally, it is a multilingual database available in nine different languages, and titles and abstracts are translated and can easily be searched by providers whose primary language may not be English.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e0254191
Author(s):  
Malgorzata M. Bala ◽  
Tina Poklepović Peričić ◽  
Joanna Zajac ◽  
Anke Rohwer ◽  
Jitka Klugarova ◽  
...  

Background Evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) knowledge and skills are recognised as core competencies of healthcare professionals worldwide, and teaching EBHC has been widely recommended as an integral part of their training. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews (SR) was to update evidence and assess the effects of various approaches for teaching evidence-based health care (EBHC) at undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) medical education (ME) level on changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour. Methods and findings This is an update of an overview that was published in 2014. The process followed standard procedures specified for the previous version of the overview, with a modified search. Searches were conducted in Epistemonikos for SRs published from 1 January 2013 to 27 October 2020 with no language restrictions. We checked additional sources for ongoing and unpublished SRs. Eligibility criteria included: SRs which evaluated educational interventions for teaching EBHC compared to no intervention or a different strategy were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected SRs, extracted data and evaluated quality using standardised instrument (AMSTAR2). The effects of strategies to teach EBHC were synthesized using a narrative approach. Previously published version of this overview included 16 SR, while the updated search identified six additional SRs. We therefore included a total of 22 SRs (with a total of 141 primary studies) in this updated overview. The SRs evaluated different educational interventions of varying duration, frequency, and format to teach various components of EBHC at different levels of ME (UG, PG, mixed). Most SRs assessed a range of EBHC related outcomes using a variety of assessment tools. Two SRs included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only, while 20 reviews included RCTs and various types of non-RCTs. Diversity of study designs and teaching activities as well as aggregated findings at the SR level prevented comparisons of the effects of different techniques. In general, knowledge was improved across all ME levels for interventions compared to no intervention or pre-test scores. Skills improved in UGs, but less so in PGs and were less consistent in mixed populations. There were positive changes in behaviour among UGs and PGs, but not in mixed populations, with no consistent improvement in attitudes in any of the studied groups. One SR showed improved patient outcomes (based on non-randomised studies). Main limitations included: poor quality and reporting of SRs, heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, and short-term follow up. Conclusions Teaching EBHC consistently improved EBHC knowledge and skills at all levels of ME and behaviour in UGs and PGs, but with no consistent improvement in attitudes towards EBHC, and little evidence of the long term influence on processes of care and patient outcomes. EBHC teaching and learning should be interactive, multifaceted, integrated into clinical practice, and should include assessments. Study registration The protocol for the original overview was developed and approved by Stellenbosch University Research Ethics Committee S12/10/262. Update of the overview Young T, Rohwer A, Volmink J, Clarke M. What are the effects of teaching evidence-based health care (EBHC)? Overview of systematic reviews. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e86706. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086706.


1997 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sube Banerjee ◽  
Edward Dickinson

Objective: The purpose of this article is to present the current status and future needs of old age psychiatry in relation to evidence-based health care. Method: The opportunities and difficulties of evidence-based medicine as applied to old age psychiatry are described. Depression is used as a specific example. The role of the Cochrane Collaboration and of clinical guidelines in dealing with these difficulties are discussed. Results: There has been a tendency for drug studies to focus on younger age groups and to exclude patients with comorbidity or polypharmacy. Aspects of clinical management separate from drugs are given insufficient attention. The generalizability of current studies is a problem in old age psychiatry. Conclusions: Psychiatry is no less part of medicine than any other specialty. Increased attention to studies of effectiveness, as opposed to efficacy, is indicated. The Cochrane Collaboration is an international network which promotes and conducts systematic reviews of the effectiveness of health care. Systematic reviews can increase the generalizability of the current knowledge base and better define the needs for future research.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (05) ◽  
pp. 225-231
Author(s):  
Andrea Schaller ◽  
Anne-Kathrin Exner ◽  
Burkhard Wild ◽  
Odile Sauzet

ZusammenfassungDie Prinzipien der evidenzbasierten Medizin werden inzwischen auf nahezu alle Gesundheitsberufe angewandt. Damit stehen Wissenschaftler und Praktiker in der Sport- und Bewegungstherapie nicht nur vor der Herausforderung zielgruppen- und Setting-spezifische Interventionen zu entwickeln, sondern diese auch adäquat zu evaluieren. Trotz zahlreicher Studien ist die externe Evidenz für die Wirksamkeit von Bewegungsförderung allerdings gering. Dies ist neben der oft geringen methodischen Qualität der einzelnen Studien auch auf die großen Herausforderungen bezüglich der klinischen Relevanz von Studienergebnissen zurückzuführen.Der vorliegende Beitrag stellt zunächst das Konzept der evidenzbasierten Gesundheitsversorgung (Evidence-Based Health Care) (EbHC) vor. Davon ausgehend werden wichtige Arbeitsschritte bei der Planung einer Interventionsstudie vorgestellt, wobei insbesondere der Aspekt der Relevanz fokussiert wird.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document