Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
There is increasing concern that conflicts of interest affect the development process of clinical practice guidelines. We evaluated The American Psychiatric Association's Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Major Depressive Disorder to determine the existence of financial and intellectual conflicts of interest and examine their possible effects. We selected this guideline because of its influence on clinical practice and because this guideline recommends pharmacotherapy for all levels of depression, despite controversies over the evidence base. ⋯ The prevalence of conflicts of interest among panel members was high. The quality of the evidence cited raises questions about the validity of the recommendations. Attention to the quality of cited studies and to the risk of bias resulting from conflicts of interest should be a priority for guideline development groups.
-
The aims of the Cochrane systematic reviews are to make readily available and up-to-date information for clinical practice, offering consistent evidence and straightforward recommendations. In 2004, we evaluated the conclusions from Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and found that 47.83% of them had insufficient evidence for use in clinical practice. We proposed to reanalyze the reviews to evaluate whether this percentage had significantly decreased. ⋯ Only a small number of the Cochrane collaboration's systematic reviews support clinical interventions with no need for additional research. A larger number of high-quality randomized clinical trials are necessary to change the 'insufficient evidence' scenario for clinical practice illustrated by the Cochrane database. It is recommended that we should produce higher-quality primary studies in active collaboration and consultation with global scholars and societies so that this can represent a major component of methodological advance in this context.
-
Multicenter Study
Application of an evidence-based decision rule to patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.
To support doctors in diagnosing patients who are suspected to have pulmonary embolism, the Christopher evidence-based decision rule was implemented in hospitals in the Netherlands. This study examines whether the Christopher evidence-based decision rule is applied in clinical practice. In addition, doctors' considerations for not applying the decision rule are explored. ⋯ The Christopher evidence-based decision rule for diagnosing pulmonary embolism was not always followed in everyday clinical practice. Doctors seem to base their diagnostic strategy on their own estimate of the likelihood of pulmonary embolism, rather than the whole decision rule. Better adherence to the decision rule could be beneficial by making doctors aware that pulmonary embolism is more likely than they initially thought. However, in a substantial number of cases, it seemed justifiable that doctors deviated from the decision rule. Therefore, further research is needed to determine the value of the Christopher evidence-based decision rule in clinical practice.
-
Decades of work on health disparities have culminated in identification of three contributors to variability in diagnosis and management of disease: (i) patient attributes; (ii) doctor's characteristics; and (iii) organizational factors. Understanding the relative influence of different contributors to variability in diagnosis and management of diabetes is important to improving quality and reducing disparities. This study was designed to examine the influence of patient, provider and organizational factors on the diagnosis and management of a major chronic disease - diabetes. ⋯ That half of all diabetes in the United States remains undiagnosed is unsurprising given only 60.9% of doctors would diagnose it when the condition is strongly suggested, and nearly one-quarter suspecting diabetes would not order tests necessary to confirm it. The diagnosis of diabetes is significantly influenced by a patient's race/ethnicity, and clinical management (specifically for foot neuropathy) is influenced by patient socio-economic status (SES), doctor's gender and access to clinical guidelines.
-
There is little evidence regarding the benefit of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) outside a critical care setting. Overprescription of SUP is not devoid of risks. This prospective study aimed to evaluate the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for SUP in a general surgery department. ⋯ This study highlights the overuse of PPIs in non-intensive care unit patients and the inappropriate continuation of PPI prescriptions at discharge. Treatment recommendations for SUP are needed to restrict PPI use for justified indications.