DOCSLIB.ORG

Health Outcomes Research HIM 6810 Health Outcomes Research (HIM 6810)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Health Outcomes Research HIM 6810 Health Outcomes Research (HIM 6810) Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs School of Biomedical Sciences Morsani College of Medicine Health Outcomes Research HIM 6810 Health Outcomes Research (HIM 6810) Course Director: Michael J. Barber, M.Sc., D.Phil. (813) 974-4181 (813) 974-4317 Canvas integrated email system Course Format: This course is delivered online through the USF Health Online Portal (http://www.usfhealthonline.com/). Course Objectives: ealth Outcomes Research (HIM 6810) is a graduate-level course designed to introduce students to fundamentals of H health outcome and clinical trial research. It explores the principles and methods used to obtain quantitative evidence on the effects of interventions on the diagnosis, etiology, and prognosis of disease. Health outcomes research is a broad term used to categorize research concerned with the effectiveness of public health interventions and health services. According to the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, outcomes research seeks to understand the end results of particular health care practices and interventions. End results include effects that people experience and care about, such as change in the ability to function. In particular, for individuals with chronic conditions, where cure is not always possible, end results include quality of life as well as mortality. By linking the care that people get to the outcomes they experience, outcomes research has become the key to developing better ways to monitor and improve the quality of care. Outcomes research is an integrated, multidisciplinary field that aims at improving the safety, effectiveness, equity, efficiency, timeliness, and patient-centeredness of practice and policy associated with healthcare research. It synthesizes aspects of other scientific and applied disciplines to solve clinical and policy research problems. It stands on the shoulders of clinical medicine, clinical epidemiology, health service delivery research, public health, and engineering as well as biological, mathematical and social sciences. Primarily, outcomes research applies statistics and epidemiology to mainstream clinical, public health, and policy issues while at the same time it draws methods and theories from the fields of economics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and the management sciences. Ultimately, the knowledge derived from outcomes research has direct application to every aspect of healthcare delivery as it enables decision makers in all levels of healthcare to make better decisions regarding prevention, diagnosis, treatment, resource allocation, etc. HIM 6810 Health Outcomes Research 1 Examples of studies in outcomes research include: investigating the variations in medical practice patterns, effectiveness research that assesses treatment allocation for specific clinical problems, appropriateness studies that determine the circumstances under which a procedure should and should not be performed, research that develops tools to identify patient preferences when treatment options are available, and research that creates methods to measure changes in health status and patients satisfaction with the health care process. Other applications include studies evaluating the impact of insurance status or reimbursement policies on the outcomes of care and the development/use of tools to identify the best ways to disseminate the results of outcomes research to physicians or consumers and encourage behavior change. The field of outcomes research emerged from a growing concern about which medical treatment works best and for whom. The past several years the interest on outcomes research has risen dramatically. This is because it has attracted the interested of public and private sector due to the indirect relation to other issues such as the cost and quality of health care. Therefore, outcomes research has attracted several types of stakeholders including consumers, healthcare providers, healthcare organizations, and the federal/state government. All stakeholders expect from outcomes research to improve healthcare decisions. Examples of the benefits to each stakeholder group include: For Consumers Increased participation in decision-making Increased choice regarding hospital/practitioner/treatment options Assurance regarding effectiveness of interventions Assessment and development of interventions to improve well-being, not just survival Health-care providers Greater certainty regarding the benefit of an intervention Standards/guidelines to guide clinical practice Shared responsibility in decision-making Protection from malpractice suits (if complying with above) For Health-care organization management Greater use of effective interventions Discontinuation of ineffective interventions/practices An organizational culture emphasizing quality Cost savings as inappropriate use is eliminated (i.e. interventions, medications, hospitalizations) Government Cost savings as inappropriate use is eliminated (i.e. interventions, medications, hospitalizations) Greater ability to plan health services Only effective pharmaceuticals and services are subsidized Target research in areas of greatest potential impact based on examination of databases etc. Competences in health outcomes research are of outmost importance for those who have an interest in performing/managing any type of research in healthcare. Students in the health informatics program and the health analytics concentration must have a deeper understanding on HIM 6810 Health Outcomes Research 2 how trials should be designed to safely derive the most reliable data that will be used to inform treatment decisions. This course will primarily focus on the design and implementation of clinical trials, which is the most important vehicle to the discovery of new treatments. All course material is presented in the context of health outcomes research applications such that at the completion of the course, students will be able to: Comprehend terminology used in health outcomes research Describe research frameworks used in outcome research Describe the main steps in conducting program evaluation Understand the differences between program evaluation and traditional research Discuss various types of study designs Form research questions and describe their associated to the theoretical design Distinguish between diagnostic, etiologic, prognostic questions Form research questions that involve benefits and harms of treatment Navigate the data collection and analysis processes Identify appropriate statistical analyses for evaluating particular outcomes Interpret analyses findings Instructor’s Office Hours: There are 2 modes. 1) Integrated chat tool – by appointment 2) Email – anytime – (The instructor will make every effort to respond within 2 business days) Location: This is a web-based course hosted in Canvas. It can be accessed via https://usflearn.instructure.com/ Course Credit Hours: 3 credit hours Course Prerequisites: The course is open to all graduate students admitted to the Health Informatics Master’s program with a concentration in Healthcare Analytics. Who To Contact and How: For course content related questions - contact the instructor directly. For Canvas related technological support, please contact USF IT Help Desk at (813) 974- 1222. Course Format: This course is web-based. Course materials and assignments will be posted on the course website. The course is divided into weekly “Sessions” and includes the following elements: Reading Assignments: Specific chapters in the textbook required for the course as well as research papers will be assigned for each session. The reading assignments are the primary means by which HIM 6810 Health Outcomes Research 3 each student will acquire the core content of the course. It is essential that students complete the reading assignments for comprehension early in each session. Quizzes: For each chapter in the reading assignment, a quiz will be posted in Canvas with which students can assess their level of comprehension of the reading assignment. Grades will be posted in the grade book for each quiz but the quiz grades will not be included in the calculation of the final course grade. Presentations: Presentations in narrated power point format will be included for each session. These presentations are intended to emphasize the main topics of the reading assignments and the clinical importance as related to the particular session topic. Assignments: Weekly assignments will be provided to students. These assignments will be related to and expand on the main topics of the reading assignment. The goal of each assignment is be to enable students to research various topics outside the textbook and presentations. Assignment grades are included in the calculation of the final course grade. Discussions: Class discussion topics will be introduced in each session. All students are expected to participate in the class discussions. Case studies, question answer activities, as well as identification of valuable web resources will be the focus of the discussions. Participation in discussions is included in the calculation of the final course grade. Exams: Exams will be administered in two occasions during the class to assess students understanding of the course material that includes reading assignments, presentations, and weekly assignments. The midterm exam will be administered during the 4th week of the course and the final exam will be administered during the 8th week of the course. Exam grades are included in the calculation of the final grade. Quizzes: There
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Explanatory to Pragmatic Clinical Trials: a New Era for Effectiveness Research
    From Explanatory to Pragmatic Clinical Trials: A New Era for Effectiveness Research Jerry Jarvik, M.D., M.P.H. Professor of Radiology, Neurological Surgery and Health Services Adjunct Professor Orthopedic Surgery & Sports Medicine and Pharmacy Director, Comparative Effectiveness, Cost and Outcomes Research Center (CECORC) UTSW April 2018 Acknowledgements •NIH: UH2 AT007766; UH3 AT007766 •NIH P30AR072572 •PCORI: CE-12-11-4469 Disclosures Physiosonix (ultrasound company): Founder/stockholder UpToDate: Section Editor Evidence-Based Neuroimaging Diagnosis and Treatment (Springer): Co-Editor The Big Picture Comparative Effectiveness Evidence Based Practice Health Policy Learning Healthcare System So we need to generate evidence Challenge #1: Clinical research is slow • Tradi>onal RCTs are slow and expensive— and rarely produce findings that are easily put into prac>ce. • In fact, it takes an average of 17 ye ars before research findings Howlead pragmaticto widespread clinical trials canchanges improve in care. practice & policy Challenge #1: Clinical research is slow “…rarely produce findings that are easily put into prac>ce.” Efficacy vs. Effectiveness Efficacy vs. Effectiveness • Efficacy: can it work under ideal conditions • Effectiveness: does it work under real-world conditions Challenge #2: Clinical research is not relevant to practice • Tradi>onal RCTs study efficacy “If we want of txs for carefully selected more evidence- popula>ons under ideal based pr actice, condi>ons. we need more • Difficult to translate to real practice-based evidence.” world. Green, LW. American Journal • When implemented into of Public Health, 2006. How pragmatic clinical trials everyday clinical prac>ce, oZen seecan a “ voltage improve drop practice”— drama>c & decreasepolicy from efficacy to effec>veness.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Performance Assessment: Considerations for Computer
    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations Clinical Performance Assessment: Considerations for Computer-Assisted Detection Devices Applied to Radiology Images and Radiology Device Data in - Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff Document issued on: January 22, 2020 Document originally issued on July 3, 2012 For questions regarding this guidance document, contact Nicholas Petrick at 301-796-2563, or by e- mail at [email protected]; or Robert Ochs at 301-796-6661, or by e-mail at [email protected]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health Contains Nonbinding Recommendations Preface Public Comment You may submit electronic comments and suggestions at any time for Agency consideration to https://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, (HFA-305), Rockville, MD 20852. Identify all comments with the docket number FDA-2009-D-0503. Comments may not be acted upon by the Agency until the document is next revised or updated. Additional Copies Additional copies are available from the Internet. You may also send an e-mail request to CDRH- [email protected] to receive a copy of the guidance. Please use the document number (1698) to identify the guidance you are requesting. Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 4 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Randomized Evaluations to Improve the Efficiency of US Healthcare Delivery
    Using Randomized Evaluations to Improve the Efficiency of US Healthcare Delivery Amy Finkelstein Sarah Taubman MIT, J-PAL North America, and NBER MIT, J-PAL North America February 2015 Abstract: Randomized evaluations of interventions that may improve the efficiency of US healthcare delivery are unfortunately rare. Across top journals in medicine, health services research, and economics, less than 20 percent of studies of interventions in US healthcare delivery are randomized. By contrast, about 80 percent of studies of medical interventions are randomized. The tide may be turning toward making randomized evaluations closer to the norm in healthcare delivery, as the relevant actors have an increasing need for rigorous evidence of what interventions work and why. At the same time, the increasing availability of administrative data that enables high-quality, low-cost RCTs and of new sources of funding that support RCTs in healthcare delivery make them easier to conduct. We suggest a number of design choices that can enhance the feasibility and impact of RCTs on US healthcare delivery including: greater reliance on existing administrative data; measuring a wide range of outcomes on healthcare costs, health, and broader economic measures; and designing experiments in a way that sheds light on underlying mechanisms. Finally, we discuss some of the more common concerns raised about the feasibility and desirability of healthcare RCTs and when and how these can be overcome. _____________________________ We are grateful to Innessa Colaiacovo, Lizi Chen, and Belinda Tang for outstanding research assistance, to Katherine Baicker, Mary Ann Bates, Kelly Bidwell, Joe Doyle, Mireille Jacobson, Larry Katz, Adam Sacarny, Jesse Shapiro, and Annetta Zhou for helpful comments, and to the Laura and John Arnold Foundation for financial support.
    [Show full text]
  • FDA Guidance: “Design Considerations for Pivotal Clinical Investigations for Medical Devices”
    FDA Guidance: “Design Considerations for Pivotal Clinical Investigations for Medical Devices” Greg Campbell, Ph.D. Director, Division of Biostatistics Center for Devices and Radiological Health U.S. Food and Drug Administration [email protected] FDA Stakeholder Webinar December 4, 2013 Design Considerations for Pivotal Clinical Investigations • http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulation andguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm373750.htm • Draft issued Aug. 15, 2011; Final issued Nov. 7, 2013. • It is guidance for industry, clinical investigators, institutional review boards and FDA staff. 2 Design Considerations for Pivotal Clinical Investigations • Guidance should help manufacturers select appropriate trial design. • Better trial design and improve the quality of data that may better support the safety and effectiveness of a device. • Better quality data may lead to timelier FDA approval or clearance of premarket submissions and speed U.S. patient access to new devices. 3 Outline • Regulatory Considerations • Principles for the Choice of Clinical Study Design • Clinical Outcome Studies – RCTs – Controls – Non-Randomized Controls – Observational Uncontrolled One-Arm Studies • OPCs and Performance Goals – Diagnostic Clinical Outcome Studies • Diagnostic Clinical Performance Studies • Sustaining the Level of Evidence of Studies • Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan • Closing Remarks 4 Stages of Medical Device Clinical Studies 1) Exploratory Stage – first-in-human and feasibility/pilot studies, iterative learning and product development. 2) Pivotal Stage – definitive study to support the safety and effectiveness evaluation of the medical device for its intended use. 3) Postmarket Stage – includes studies intended to better understand the long-term effectiveness and safety of the device, including rare adverse events. Not all products will go through all stages.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting Indirect Treatment Comparisons and Network Meta
    VALUE IN HEALTH 14 (2011) 417–428 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jval SCIENTIFIC REPORT Interpreting Indirect Treatment Comparisons and Network Meta-Analysis for Health-Care Decision Making: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 1 Jeroen P. Jansen, PhD1,*, Rachael Fleurence, PhD2, Beth Devine, PharmD, MBA, PhD3, Robbin Itzler, PhD4, Annabel Barrett, BSc5, Neil Hawkins, PhD6, Karen Lee, MA7, Cornelis Boersma, PhD, MSc8, Lieven Annemans, PhD9, Joseph C. Cappelleri, PhD, MPH10 1Mapi Values, Boston, MA, USA; 2Oxford Outcomes, Bethesda, MD, USA; 3Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, School of Pharmacy, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; 4Merck Research Laboratories, North Wales, PA, USA; 5Eli Lilly and Company Ltd., Windlesham, Surrey, UK; 6Oxford Outcomes Ltd., Oxford, UK; 7Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Ottawa, ON, Canada; 8University of Groningen / HECTA, Groningen, The Netherlands; 9University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; 10Pfizer Inc., New London, CT, USA ABSTRACT Evidence-based health-care decision making requires comparisons of all of randomized, controlled trials allow multiple treatment comparisons of relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized, con- competing interventions. Next, an introduction to the synthesis of the avail- trolled trials involving a direct comparison of all treatments of interest, able evidence with a focus on terminology, assumptions, validity, and statis- indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide use- tical methods is provided, followed by advice on critically reviewing and in- ful evidence for judiciously selecting the best choice(s) of treatment. terpreting an indirect treatment comparison or network meta-analysis to Mixed treatment comparisons, a special case of network meta-analysis, inform decision making.
    [Show full text]
  • Patient Reported Outcomes (PROS) in Performance Measurement
    Patient-Reported Outcomes Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Defining Patient-Reported Outcomes ............................................................................................ 2 How Are PROs Used? ............................................................................................................................ 3 Measuring research study endpoints ........................................................................................................ 3 Monitoring adverse events in clinical research ..................................................................................... 3 Monitoring symptoms, patient satisfaction, and health care performance ................................ 3 Example from the NIH Collaboratory ................................................................................................................... 4 Measuring PROs: Instruments, Item Banks, and Devices ....................................................... 5 PRO Instruments ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Item Banks........................................................................................................................................................... 8 Devices .................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A National Strategy to Develop Pragmatic Clinical Trials Infrastructure
    A National Strategy to Develop Pragmatic Clinical Trials Infrastructure Thomas W. Concannon, Ph.D.1,2, Jeanne-Marie Guise, M.D., M.P.H.3, Rowena J. Dolor, M.D., M.H.S.4, Paul Meissner, M.S.P.H.5, Sean Tunis, M.D., M.P.H.6, Jerry A. Krishnan, M.D., Ph.D.7,8, Wilson D. Pace, M.D.9, Joel Saltz, M.D., Ph.D.10, William R. Hersh, M.D.3, Lloyd Michener, M.D.4, and Timothy S. Carey, M.D., M.P.H.11 Abstract An important challenge in comparative effectiveness research is the lack of infrastructure to support pragmatic clinical trials, which com- pare interventions in usual practice settings and subjects. These trials present challenges that differ from those of classical efficacy trials, which are conducted under ideal circumstances, in patients selected for their suitability, and with highly controlled protocols. In 2012, we launched a 1-year learning network to identify high-priority pragmatic clinical trials and to deploy research infrastructure through the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium that could be used to launch and sustain them. The network and infrastructure were initiated as a learning ground and shared resource for investigators and communities interested in developing pragmatic clinical trials. We followed a three-stage process of developing the network, prioritizing proposed trials, and implementing learning exercises that culminated in a 1-day network meeting at the end of the year. The year-long project resulted in five recommendations related to developing the network, enhancing community engagement, addressing regulatory challenges, advancing information technology, and developing research methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Missing Data in Clinical Studies
    The perils of the unknown: Missing data in clinical studies Helen Bridge1 andThomas M. Schindler2 1 AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK 2 Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, Biberach, Germany Visit 1 Correspondence to: Visit 2 Helen Bridge or Thomas M. Schindler Medical Writing Europe Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Birkendorfer Str. 65 Visit 3 88307 Biberach an der Riß, Germany Thomas.Schindler@ boehringer-ingelheim.com Visit 4 Abstract The phenomenon of missing data is ubiquitous in clinical studies. Both the extent Visit 5 of missing data and the structure of missing data can introduce bias into study results and All rights reserved Schindler ©TM lead to wrong conclusions. Medical writers Figure 1. A depiction of missing data in clinical trials. should be aware of the extent of missing data All rights reserved ©TM Schindler and should describe the methods used to deal with the issue. This article outlines some of consequences. The complexity of clinical studies writer be absolved of having to talk about missing the most commonly used statistical methods means that everything is related to everything data. But as seen from this non-exhaustive list, in for handling missing data. The traditionally else, so the issue of missing data is linked to many the real world things are never perfect, and used last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) other aspects, from study design to patient the issue of missing data will invariably arise. method to fill data gaps is problematic in retention, data analysis, and the conclusions that many ways. It is better to employ a method can be drawn. Because of this, every scientific What are the issues? that reduces bias, such as multiple imputation report about a clinical study must take note of the We cannot assume that we will obtain all the data (MI) or mixed-effects models for repeated extent to which data are missing and how this for all patients in a clinical study.
    [Show full text]
  • ICH Guideline E8 (R1) on General Considerations for Clinical Studies Step 2B
    08 May 2019 EMA/CHMP/ICH/544570/1998 Committee for Human Medicinal Products ICH guideline E8 (R1) on general considerations for clinical studies Step 2b Transmission to CHMP 25 April 2019 Adoption by CHMP 25 April 2019 Release for public consultation 10 May 2019 Deadline for comments 30 September 2019 Comments should be provided using this template. The completed comments form should be sent to [email protected] Official address Domenico Scarlattilaan 6 ● 1083 HS Amsterdam ● The Netherlands Address for visits and deliveries Refer to www.ema.europa.eu/how-to-find-us Send us a question Go to www.ema.europa.eu/contact Telephone +31 (0)88 781 6000 An agency of the European Union © European Medicines Agency, 2019. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HARMONISATION OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMAN USE ICH HARMONISED GUIDELINE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLINICAL STUDIES E8(R1) Draft version Currently under public consultation At Step 2 of the ICH Process, a consensus draft text or guideline, agreed by the appropriate ICH Expert Working Group, is transmitted by the ICH Assembly to the regulatory authorities of the ICH regions for internal and external consultation, according to national or regional procedures E8(R1) Document History Code History Date E8(R1) Endorsement by the Members of the ICH Assembly under Step 2 and release for public consultation (document dated 25 March 2019). Legal notice: This document is protected by copyright and may, with the exception of the ICH logo, be used, reproduced, incorporated into other works, adapted, modified, translated or distributed under a public license provided that ICH's copyright in the document is acknowledged at all times.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence-Based Medicine: Is It a Bridge Too Far?
    Fernandez et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2015) 13:66 DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0057-0 REVIEW Open Access Evidence-based medicine: is it a bridge too far? Ana Fernandez1*, Joachim Sturmberg2, Sue Lukersmith3, Rosamond Madden3, Ghazal Torkfar4, Ruth Colagiuri4 and Luis Salvador-Carulla5 Abstract Aims: This paper aims to describe the contextual factors that gave rise to evidence-based medicine (EBM), as well as its controversies and limitations in the current health context. Our analysis utilizes two frameworks: (1) a complex adaptive view of health that sees both health and healthcare as non-linear phenomena emerging from their different components; and (2) the unified approach to the philosophy of science that provides a new background for understanding the differences between the phases of discovery, corroboration, and implementation in science. Results: The need for standardization, the development of clinical epidemiology, concerns about the economic sustainability of health systems and increasing numbers of clinical trials, together with the increase in the computer’s ability to handle large amounts of data, have paved the way for the development of the EBM movement. It was quickly adopted on the basis of authoritative knowledge rather than evidence of its own capacity to improve the efficiency and equity of health systems. The main problem with the EBM approach is the restricted and simplistic approach to scientific knowledge, which prioritizes internal validity as the major quality of the studies to be included in clinical guidelines. As a corollary, the preferred method for generating evidence is the explanatory randomized controlled trial. This method can be useful in the phase of discovery but is inadequate in the field of implementation, which needs to incorporate additional information including expert knowledge, patients’ values and the context.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase III Clinical Trials, What Are They Good For?
    Phase III Clinical Trials, what are they good for? Session 4: Clinical Trials Tuesday 12th February 2019 Professor Alan Boyd FRCP FFPM Immediate Past President, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine, RCP CEO, Boyd Consultants Ltd Standard Drug Development Process Risk Management Plan - Decision to Pharmacovigilance Develop Product: Research & IMPD/CTA Phase Phase File MMA Post-Approval Selection of Pre-Clinical Phase Filing I II + NDA Clinical Studies Compound Research & III Toxicology, Manufacturing Health Technology Assessments 20-100 Healthy 100-300 300-3000+ Volunteers &/or Patients: Patients: Patients: Assess Safety & Assess/Confirm Assess Safety Efficacy Safety, Efficacy & Effectiveness Origin of Phase III Clinical Trials • Phase III Clinical Trial is typically a prospective Randomised Controlled Trial that investigates the effects of an experimental treatment compared with a control treatment (an approved therapy, standard care or placebo) • Concept of RCTs not established till 1948 – MRC Study of Streptomycin in TB – Austin Bradford Hill credited with establishing RCTs as quoted in the BMJ ‘need for adequately controlled clinical trials’ • RCTs now recognised as the standard approach for determining therapeutic safety and efficacy of new medicinal products RCTs & Phase III Clinical Trials • By 2004 Cochrane Library contained over 150,000 RCTs • Plus procedures & guidelines around the conduct and reporting of RCTs have been developed and refined • Example – CONSORT Statement for reporting RCTs – 1996, 2001 & 2010 • ClinicalTrials.gov
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence-Based Medicine and Why Should I Care?
    New Horizons Symposium Papers What Is Evidence-Based Medicine and Why Should I Care? Dean R Hess PhD RRT FAARC Introduction Is There a Problem? What Is Evidence-Based Medicine? Hierarchy of Evidence Finding the Evidence Examining the Evidence for a Diagnosis Test Examining the Evidence for a Therapy Meta-Analysis Why Isn’t the Best Evidence Implemented Into Practice? Summary The principles of evidence-based medicine provide the tools to incorporate the best evidence into everyday practice. Evidence-based medicine is the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available research evidence from systematic research and the patient’s values and expec- tations. A hierarchy of evidence can be used to assess the strength of evidence upon which clinical decisions are made, with randomized studies at the top of the hierarchy. The efficient approach to finding the best evidence is to identify a systematic review or evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Calculated metrics, such as sensitivity, specificity, receiver-operating-characteristic curves, and likelihood ratios, can be used to examine the evidence for a diagnostic test. High-level studies of a therapy are prospective, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, have a concealed allocation, have a parallel design, and assess patient-important outcomes. Metrics used to assess the evidence for a therapy include event rate, relative risk, relative risk reduction, absolute risk re- duction, number needed to treat, and odds ratio. Although not all tenets of evidence-based medicine are universally accepted, the principles of evidence-based medicine nonetheless provide a valuable approach to respiratory care practice. Key words: likelihood ratio, meta-analysis, number needed to treat, receiver operating characteristic curve, relative risk, sensitivity, specificity, systematic review, evidence-based medicine.
    [Show full text]