MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2948025469 · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000171

Using evidence synthesis and clinical practice guidelines in everyday decision-making process

2019· editorial· en· W2948025469 sur OpenAlex
Miloslav Klugar, Jitka Klugarová

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · 2019
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueClinical practice guidelines implementation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésExcellenceHealth careCzechEvidence-based practiceBest practiceProcess (computing)Evidence-based medicineMedical educationPolitical sciencePsychologyPublic relationsMedicineMEDLINELawAlternative medicineComputer sciencePathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Every decision of a healthcare professional should be according to an evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) approach based on the best available up-to-date evidence, expert experiences and patient's preferences. This EBHC principle seems to be very simple; however, the reality and everyday practice differs completely, not only among different countries, but there is a high heterogeneity in its daily use among regions and even healthcare facilities within one country as well. To discuss the critical question ‘producing and using the best available evidence and guidelines’ on an international level, we organized in December 2018 the ‘European JBI symposium of Evidence-Based Healthcare with focus on the Clinical Practice Guidelines, Decision making process and Evidence synthesis in the Czech Republic’ (JBC European Symposium). The symposium consisted of eight sessions dealing with methodology, transfer and using evidence synthesis and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) during decision-making process. A total of 18 keynote speakers from Canada, Iran and the most of European countries presented over the 2 days of the symposium, which was formally opened by the President of the symposium Adj. Assoc. Prof. Miloslav Klugar, PhD, Director of The Czech Republic (Middle European), Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare: The Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence and Chair of European Joanna Briggs Collaboration. The main topic of the symposium was CPGs. The main keynote speaker at the JBC European Symposium was Prof. Holger Schünemann, who presented a completely new approach for using nonresearch ‘expert evidence’ and argued that to help ensure that expert evidence is used appropriately to inform recommendations within guidelines, it must be collected and appraised systematically and transparently. The President of the symposium presented the first outcomes of the ‘Czech National project for Clinical Practice guidelines’, which is led by the Czech Health Research Council in cooperation with the Ministry of Health of Czech Republic and the Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic. Prof. Cooper from Scotland and Dr Evans from the United Kingdom were talking about using qualitative evidence in development of CPGs. Trustworthy evidence-based CPGs should be according to GRADE methodology based on the systematic review. So, during the symposium the methodology and a role of evidence synthesis in the decision-making process and CPG development were also discussed, and one qualitative systematic review, two scoping reviews and one systematic review protocol of epidemiological evidence were presented. Development of every study including systematic review or guideline has to be justified in terms of necessity. The key part of the planning phase of a systematic review or CPG is not only preliminary search of existing systematic review/CPG but also epidemiological analysis of the defined clinical problem in a particular country. One session including four presentations was focused on the importance and practical use of epidemiological analysis in development of CPGs in the Czech Republic. The most crucial part of the whole evidence-based approach is implementation evidence including recommendations from CPGs into the practice. Prof. Kent, Prof. Loveday and Dr Carrier presented their experiences with implementing new evidence into clinical practice from different parts of the United Kingdom. Dr Moreno introduced the Spanish approach, Prof. Bala talked about guideline adaptation and their transfer into the practice in Poland, and Dr Mazilu shared experiences from Romania. In the context of evidence synthesis, CPG and EBHC approach generally, we should every time keep in mind the educational aspect, which is essential for the increase of producing, transferring and using the systematic review as the highest level of scientific evidence and evidence-based CPGs in practice. Prof. Apostolo presented the Portuguese ‘Evidence-based practice educational program’ and Dr Adriaenssens shared experiences about the Belgian ‘Evidence-based practice educational program and national project’. Part of the symposium was also the official opening of the Masaryk University GRADE Centre, conducted with ceremonial ribbon-cutting by Prof. Schünemann and official opening of the Cochrane Czech Republic, officiated by Prof. Gerd Antes. The opening ceremonial was moderated by the deputy director of both newly established centers and head of the local organizing committee of the symposium Adj. Assoc. Prof. Jitka Klugarová, PhD. Acknowledgements Conflicts of interest The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,020
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,768
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,747
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0200,768
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,003
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,564
Tête enseignante GPT0,668
Écart entre enseignants0,105 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle