The value of “traditional” reviews in the era of systematic“传统”评价在系统化时代的价值.pptVIP

When the best is the enemy of the good: The nature of research evidence used in systematic reviews and guidelines Task Force on Systematic Review and Guidelines Contributors Panel members: Michael Boninger, MD Tamara Bushnik, PhD Marcel Dijkers, PhD Peter Esselman, MD Steven Gard, PhD* NCDDR’s Task Forces Overview and purpose of three Task Forces - Standards of Evidence and Methods - Knowledge Translation and Knowledge Value Mapping (KT-KVM) - Systematic Review and Guidelines Process of Task Force work Goals of this webcast Describe evidence grading in evidence-based practice (EBP) Note the fact that some systematic reviews use as standard “best possible evidence,” rather than “best available evidence” Explain that this policy goes against the grain of EBP and robs us of potentially useful information Especially in rehabilitation, where (for a number of good reasons) RCTs and other strong designs are few Format of this webcast Slide presentation of about 50 minutes Hold your questions/comments, unless absolutely needed to make it possible to follow the presentation QA of about 25 minutes Questions welcome by email: (webcast@ncddr.org) or voice: 1-800-266-1832 Evidence-based practice “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence-based medicine … means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research.” (emphases added) Sackett et al., 1996 Evidence-based practice “The practice of medicine with treatment recommendations that have their origin in objective tests of efficacy published in the scientific literature rather than anecdotal observations.“ Gerontology Research Group Evidence-based practice “Practice supported by research findings and/or demonstrated as being effective through a critical examination of current and past practices.“ Canadian Orthopa