診療ガイドラインおよびMindsにおける医学関連文献の評価選定基準について

概要

論文の詳細を見る
Clinical practice guidelines have been developed by official organizations to help healthcare workers with clinical decision-making. The use of these guidelines is expected to improve patients' outcomes. Critical appraisal of the clinical studies used to form a knowledge base is a crucial step in the process of developing guidelines. The guality of evidence depends on the study design, with randomized controlled trials providing the most reliable evidence. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials can reduce the chance of a statistical error and provides better evidence than a single trial. Only randomized controlled trials can provide a definite answer as to whether a specific intervention can improve the outcomes with clinical relevance. Evidence based on non-randomized clinical trials is weaker than that provided by randomized controlled trials. A hierarchical evaluation system according to study design, with meta-analyses at the top and experts' opinions at the bottom, has been used to determine the strength of recommendations. However, even randomized controlled trials are not immune to various biases. A more precise and detailed evaluation method for selecting clinical studies that are meaningful, valid, reliable, and relevant is needed. The Japan Council for Quality Health Care has developed the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) for Japanese. healthcare workers and the public. An evaluation system for this service is currently under development.
特定非営利活動法人日本医学図書館協会の論文

著者

森實敏夫
神奈川歯科大学内科

診療ガイドラインおよびMindsにおける医学関連文献の評価選定基準について

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク