scholarly journals An Introduction to an Evidence-Based Approach to Interventional Techniques in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain

2009 ◽  
Vol 4;12 (4;7) ◽  
pp. E1-E33
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Question ◽  
Based Medicine

Practice guidelines are systematically developed statements to assist practitioners and patients in making decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances. Clinical practice guidelines present statements of best practice based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published studies on the outcomes of treatment. In November 1989, Congress mandated the creation of the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research (AHCPR). AHCPR was given broad responsibility for supporting research, data development, and related activities. Associated with this mandate, the National Academy of Sciences published a document indicating that guidelines are expected to enhance the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of health care services. Guidelines as a whole have been characterized by multiple conflicts in terminology and technique. These conflicts are notable for the confusion they create and for what they reflect about differences in values, experiences, and interest among different parties. Despite this confusion, public and private development of guidelines is growing exponentially. There are only limited means to coordinate these guidelines in order to resolve inconsistencies, fill in gaps, track applications and results, and assess the soundness of individual guidelines. Significant diversity exists in clinical practice guidelines. The inconsistency amongst guidelines arises from variations in values, tolerance for risks, preferences, expertise, and conflicts of interest. In 2000, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) first created treatment guidelines to help practitioners. There have been 4 subsequent updates. These guidelines address the issues of systematic evaluation and ongoing care of chronic or persistent pain, and provide information about the scientific basis of recommended procedures. These guidelines are expected to increase patient compliance, dispel misconceptions among providers and patients, manage patient expectations reasonably, and form the basis of a therapeutic partnership between the patient, the provider, and payors. The ASIPP guidelines are based on evidence-based medicine (EBM). EBM is in turn based on 4 basic contingencies: the recognition of the patient’s problem and the construction of a structured clinical question; the ability to efficiently and effectively search the medical literature to retrieve the best available evidence to answer the clinical question; clinical appraisal of the evidence; and integration of the evidence with all aspects of the individual patient’s decision-making to determine the best clinical care of the patient. Evidence synthesis for guidelines includes the review of all relevant systematic reviews and individual articles, grading them for relevance, methodologic quality, consistency, and recommendations. Key words: Evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, critical appraisal, guideline development, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, evidence synthesis, clinical relevance, grading recommendations, systematic reviews

Ensuring Quality Cancer Care by the Use of Clinical Practice Guidelines and Critical Pathways

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (11) ◽  
pp. 2886-2897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Smith ◽  
Bruce E. Hillner
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Peer Pressure ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Based Medicine

PURPOSE: We describe the impact of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on improvement in oncology treatment processes or outcomes. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of the literature from 1966 to the present and a directed review of the literature. RESULTS: Improvements have been demonstrated in compliance with evidence-based guidelines or evidence-based medicine, and in short-term length of stay, complication rates, and financial outcomes. The data suggest that patient satisfaction can be maintained despite a shorter length of stay. There has been one example of province-wide improvement in disease-free and overall survival of breast cancer patients coincident with the adoption of CPGs. The components of successful guidelines can be summarized as follows: (1) development is based on evidence, with the guideline formulated by key physicians in the group; (2) the guidelines are disseminated to all affected health care professionals for critique; (3) implementation includes direct feedback on performance to physicians or general feedback on system performance; and (4) there is accountability for performance according to the guidelines. This accountability can consist of voluntary peer pressure to conform to evidence-based medicine, and it does not require a financial reward or penalty. CONCLUSION: Some attempts to improve practice have been moderately successful in achievement of reduced health care costs, reduced hospital length of stay, and possibly improved outcomes. Other methods that are still in use have been demonstrated to have little effect. Programs that have not succeeded have relied on voluntary change in practice behavior without incentives to change or have had no accountability component. Further research is needed to assess how guidelines are enacted in organizations other than those demonstrably committed to improvement, ways to improve compliance of health care providers who are not committed to change, and methods to improve accountability.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Interventional Pain Management: Principles, Problems, Potential and Applications

2007 ◽  
Vol 2;10 (3;2) ◽  
pp. 329-356
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Based Medicine

Background: The past decade has been marked by unprecedented interest in evidencebased medicine (EBM) and a focus upon the use of innovative methods and protocols to provide valid and reliable information for and about healthcare. Thus (it is at least purported that), healthcare decisions are increasingly being based upon research-derived evidence, rather than on expert opinion or clinical experience alone. But this quest for evidence to support clinical practice also compels the question of whether the methods employed to acquire information, the ranking of information that is acquired, and the prudent use of this information are sound enough to actually sustain the validity of an evidence-based paradigm in practice. Moreover, it is becoming apparent that the scope, depth, and applicability of available evidence to effectively and ethically guide the myriad of situational decisions in clinical practice is not uniform across all medical fields or disciplines. In particular, comprehensive evidence synthesis or complete guidelines for clinical decision-making in interventional pain management remain relatively scarce. EBM is defined as the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of the current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. Thus, the practice of EBM requires the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available external evidence from systematic research. To arrive at evidence-based medical decisions all valid and relevant evidence should be considered alongside randomized controlled trials, patient preferences, and resources. Objective: To describe principles of EBM, and the methods and relative utility of evidence synthesis in interventional pain management. Description: This review provides 1) an understanding of evidence-based medicine, 2) an overview of issues related to evaluating the quality of individual studies, analyses, narrative, and systematic reviews, 3) discussion of factors affecting the strength and value(s) of evidence, 4) analysis of specific reviews of interventional techniques, and finally, 5) the utility and purpose of guidelines in interventional pain management. Conclusion: Interpreting and understanding evidence synthesis, systematic reviews and other analytic literature is a difficult task. It is crucial for pain physicians to understand the goals, principles, and process(es) of EBM so as to meaningfully improve its application(s). This knowledge affords better insight into not only the analytic reviews in interventional pain management provided herein, but ultimately allows future information to be selected, evaluated, and used with prudence in technically competent, ethically sound medical practice. Key words: Interventional pain management, interventional techniques, evidence-based medicine, evidence synthesis, pragmatic or practical clinical trials, randomized trials, observational studies, non-randomized trials, systematic reviews, quality of evidence

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document