Evidence Based Practice

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Appraisal of an RCT using a critical appraisal checklist
Advertisements

Bias in Clinical Trials
Department of O UTCOMES R ESEARCH. Daniel I. Sessler, M.D. Professor and Chair Department of O UTCOMES R ESEARCH The Cleveland Clinic Clinical Research.
Critical Appraisal of an Article on Therapy. Why critical appraisal? Why therapy?
Evidenced Based Practice; Systematic Reviews; Critiquing Research
Slide Slide 1 Copyright © 2007 Pearson Education, Inc Publishing as Pearson Addison-Wesley. Created by Tom Wegleitner, Centreville, Virginia Section 1-3.
Journal Club Alcohol and Health: Current Evidence January–February 2007.
By Dr. Ahmed Mostafa Assist. Prof. of anesthesia & I.C.U. Evidence-based medicine.
Sample Size Determination
EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE
Critical Appraisal of an Article on Therapy (2). Formulate Clinical Question Patient/ population Intervention Comparison Outcome (s) Women with IBS Alosetron.
Intervention Studies Principles of Epidemiology Lecture 10 Dona Schneider, PhD, MPH, FACE.
Chapter 1: Introduction to Statistics
EBD for Dental Staff Seminar 2: Core Critical Appraisal Dominic Hurst evidenced.qm.
1 Experimental Study Designs Dr. Birgit Greiner Dep. of Epidemiology and Public Health.
Systematic Reviews.
Study design P.Olliaro Nov04. Study designs: observational vs. experimental studies What happened?  Case-control study What’s happening?  Cross-sectional.
EBC course 10 April 2003 Critical Appraisal of the Clinical Literature: The Big Picture Cynthia R. Long, PhD Associate Professor Palmer Center for Chiropractic.
Systematic reviews to support public policy: An overview Jeff Valentine University of Louisville AfrEA – NONIE – 3ie Cairo.
Successful Concepts Study Rationale Literature Review Study Design Rationale for Intervention Eligibility Criteria Endpoint Measurement Tools.
Landmark Trials: Recommendations for Interpretation and Presentation Julianna Burzynski, PharmD, BCOP, BCPS Heme/Onc Clinical Pharmacy Specialist 11/29/07.
TUJUAN MEMONITOR HASIL KERJA MAHASISWA (MEMBACA ARTIKEL) MENJELASKAN BAGIAN-BAGIAN KERTAS KERJA UNTUK MENELAAH ARTIKEL DAN KRITERIA PENILAIAN KUALITAS.
EXPERIMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Wipanee Phupakdi, MD September 15, Overview  Define EBM  Learn steps in EBM process  Identify parts of a well-built clinical question  Discuss.
Evidence Based Practice RCS /9/05. Definitions  Rosenthal and Donald (1996) defined evidence-based medicine as a process of turning clinical problems.
META-ANALYSIS, RESEARCH SYNTHESES AND SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS © LOUIS COHEN, LAWRENCE MANION & KEITH MORRISON.
Objectives  Identify the key elements of a good randomised controlled study  To clarify the process of meta analysis and developing a systematic review.
1 Study Design Issues and Considerations in HUS Trials Yan Wang, Ph.D. Statistical Reviewer Division of Biometrics IV OB/OTS/CDER/FDA April 12, 2007.
Sifting through the evidence Sarah Fradsham. Types of Evidence Primary Literature Observational studies Case Report Case Series Case Control Study Cohort.
PTP 661 EVIDENCE ABOUT INTERVENTIONS CRITICALLY APPRAISE THE QUALITY AND APPLICABILITY OF AN INTERVENTION RESEARCH STUDY Min Huang, PT, PhD, NCS.
Is the conscientious explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decision about the care of the individual patient (Dr. David Sackett)
Compliance Original Study Design Randomised Surgical care Medical care.
EVALUATING u After retrieving the literature, you have to evaluate or critically appraise the evidence for its validity and applicability to your patient.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم.
EBM --- Journal Reading Presenter :黃美琴 Date : 2005/10/27.
CRITICAL APPARAISAL OF A PAPER ON THERAPY 421 CORSE EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE (EBM)
Chapter 12 Quantitative Questions and Procedures.
The Research Process Formulate a research hypothesis (involves a lit review) Design a study Conduct the study (i.e., collect data) Analyze the data (using.
PLANNING RESEARCH.
Critically Appraising a Medical Journal Article
Chapter 9 Designing Experiments
Evidence-based Medicine
CLINICAL PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT
Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence
How to read a paper D. Singh-Ranger.
Clinical Studies Continuum
Donald E. Cutlip, MD Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Evidence-Based Practice I: Definition – What is it?
Supplementary Table 1. PRISMA checklist
Understanding Results
Randomized Trials: A Brief Overview
Design of Clinical Trials
Research Designs, Threats to Validity and the Hierarchy of Evidence and Appraisal of Limitations (HEAL) Grading System.
Chapter 7 The Hierarchy of Evidence
Critical Reading of Clinical Study Results
Strategies for Implementing Flexible Clinical Trials Jerald S. Schindler, Dr.P.H. Cytel Pharmaceutical Research Services 2006 FDA/Industry Statistics Workshop.
Randomization and Comparative Designs
S1316 analysis details Garnet Anderson Katie Arnold
Diagnosis General Guidelines:
Ten things about Experimental Design
Experimental Design.
DAY 2 Single-Case Design Drug Intervention Research Tom Kratochwill
Experimental Design.
Dr. Matthew Keough August 8th, 2018 Summer School
Experimental Research
Appraisal of an RCT using a critical appraisal checklist
Experimental Research
Chapter 9 Designing Experiments
DAY 2 Single-Case Design Drug Intervention Research Tom Kratochwill
Meta-analysis, systematic reviews and research syntheses
Presentation transcript:

Evidence Based Practice RCS 6740 7/26/04

Evidence Based Practice: Definitions “Evidence based practice is the integration of the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research with individual clinical experiences” (Singh & Oswald, 2004) It is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current evidence in making decisions about client treatment and care

Benefits of Evidence Based Practice Enhances the effectiveness and the efficiency of diagnosis and treatment Provides clinicians with a specific methodology to search for research Helps clinicians critically evaluating published and unpublished research Facilitates patient-centered outcomes

Steps of Evidence Based Practice 1) Define the problem 2) Search the treatment literature for evidence about the problem and solutions to the problem 3) Critically evaluate the literature (evidence) 4) Choose and initiate treatment 5) Monitor Patient Outcomes

Potential Questions when Evaluating Random/Controlled Trials 1. Were detailed descriptions provided of the study population? 2. Did the study include a large enough patient sample to achieve sufficient statistical power? 3. Were the patients (subjects) randomly allocated to treatment and control groups? 4. Was the randomization successful, as shown by comparability of sociodemographic and other variables of the patients in each group? 5. If the two groups were not successfully randomized, were appropriate statistical tests (e.g., logistic regression analysis) used to adjust for confounding variables that may have affected treatment outcome(s)?

Potential Questions when Evaluating Random/Controlled Trials Cont. 6. Did the study use a single- or double-blind methodology? 7. Did the study use placebo controls? 8. Were the two treatment conditions stated in a manner that (a) clearly identified differences between the two, (b) would permit independent replication, and (c) would allow judgment of their generalizability to everyday practice?

Potential Questions when Evaluating Random/Controlled Trials Cont. 9. Were the two arms of the treatment protocol (treatment vs. control) managed in exactly the same manner except for the interventions? 10. Were the outcomes measured broadly with appropriate, reliable and valid instruments? 11. Were the outcomes clearly stated? 12. Were the primary and secondary end-points of the study clearly defined? 13. Were the side effects and potential harms of the treatment and control conditions appropriately measured and documented?

Potential Questions when Evaluating Random/Controlled Trials Cont. 14. In addition to disorder- or condition-specific outcomes, were patient specific outcomes, functional status, and quality of life issues measured? 15. Were the measurements free from bias and error? 16. Were the patients followed up after the termination of the study and, if so, for how long? 17. Was there documentation of the proportion of patients who dropped out of the study? 18. Was there documentation of the proportion of patients who were lost to follow up?

Potential Questions when Evaluating Random/Controlled Trials Cont. 19. Was there documentation of when and why the attrition occurred? 20. If the attrition was substantial, was there documentation of a comparison of baseline characteristics and risk factors of treatment non-responders or withdrawals with those who were treatment responders or completed the study? 21. Was there reporting of the results in terms of number-needed-to-treat (i.e., the reciprocal of the absolute risk reduction rate).

Potential Questions when Evaluating Random/Controlled Trials Cont. 22. Were multiple comparisons used to increase the likelihood of a chance finding of a nominally statistically significant difference? 23. Were correct statistical tests used to analyze the data? 24. Were the results interpreted appropriately? 25. Did the interpretation of the results go beyond the actual data?

Potential Questions when Evaluating Other Types of Research 1. Is the treatment or technique available/affordable? 2. How large is the likely effect? 3. How uncertain are the study results? 4. What are the likely adverse effects of treatment? Are they reversible? 5. Are the patients included in the studies similar to the patient(s) I am dealing with? If not, are the differences great enough to render the evidence useless?

Potential Questions when Evaluating Other Types of Research Cont. 6. Was the study setting similar to my own setting? 7. Will my patient receive the same co-interventions that were used in the study? If not, will it matter? 8. How good was adherence (compliance) in the study? Is adherence likely to be similar in my own practice? 9. Are the outcomes examined in the studies important to me/my patients?

Potential Questions when Evaluating Other Types of Research Cont. 10. What are my patients’ preferences regarding the treatment? What are the likely harms and the likely benefits? 11. If I apply the evidence inappropriately to my patient, how harmful is it likely to be? Will it be too late to change my mind if I have inappropriately applied the evidence?

Questions and Comments?