Evidence-Based Rehabilitation: A Guide To Practice Download UPDATED

byEstes Comeng - 0

Evidence-Based Rehabilitation: A Guide To Practice Download

Illness diagnosis, treatment and prevention based on rigorous data drove and analysis

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is "the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of electric current best evidence in making decisions most the intendance of individual patients."[1] The aim of EBM is to integrate the experience of the clinician, the values of the patient, and the best available scientific information to guide controlling about clinical management. The term was originally used to describe an arroyo to didactics the do of medicine and improving decisions by individual physicians nearly individual patients.[two]

Groundwork, history and definition [edit]

Medicine has a long history of scientific inquiry about the prevention, diagnosis, and handling of human disease.[iii] [four]

The concept of a controlled clinical trial was beginning described in 1662 by January Baptist van Helmont in reference to the practice of bloodletting.[five] Wrote Van Helmont:

Let u.s.a. accept out of the Hospitals, out of the Camps, or from elsewhere, 200, or 500 poor People, that accept fevers or Pleuritis. Let us divide them in Halfes, permit us cast lots, that ane halfe of them may fall to my share, and the others to yours; I will cure them without blood-letting and sensible evacuation; but you do, as ye know ... we shall see how many Funerals both of us shall accept...

The first published written report describing the behave and results of a controlled clinical trial was by James Lind, a Scottish naval surgeon who conducted inquiry on scurvy during his time aboard HMS Salisbury in the Channel Armada, while patrolling the Bay of Biscay. Lind divided the sailors participating in his experiment into six groups, so that the effects of diverse treatments could be fairly compared. Lind found improvement in symptoms and signs of scurvy amidst the group of men treated with lemons or oranges. He published a treatise describing the results of this experiment in 1753.[6]

An early critique of statistical methods in medicine was published in 1835.[seven]

The term 'testify-based medicine' was introduced in 1990 by Gordon Guyatt of McMaster University.[8] [9] [10] [eleven]

Clinical conclusion-making [edit]

Alvan Feinstein's publication of Clinical Judgment in 1967 focused attention on the role of clinical reasoning and identified biases that can bear upon information technology.[12] In 1972, Archie Cochrane published Effectiveness and Efficiency, which described the lack of controlled trials supporting many practices that had previously been assumed to be effective.[xiii] In 1973, John Wennberg began to document wide variations in how physicians proficient.[fourteen] Through the 1980s, David M. Eddy described errors in clinical reasoning and gaps in evidence.[fifteen] [xvi] [17] [18] In the mid-1980s, Alvin Feinstein, David Sackett and others published textbooks on clinical epidemiology, which translated epidemiological methods to md controlling.[19] [20] Toward the finish of the 1980s, a group at RAND showed that large proportions of procedures performed by physicians were considered inappropriate even by the standards of their own experts.[21]

Evidence-based guidelines and policies [edit]

David M. Eddy first began to utilise the term 'bear witness-based' in 1987 in workshops and a manual deputed by the Quango of Medical Specialty Societies to teach formal methods for designing clinical practice guidelines. The manual was eventually published by the American College of Physicians.[22] [23] Eddy first published the term 'evidence-based' in March 1990, in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that laid out the principles of testify-based guidelines and population-level policies, which Eddy described as "explicitly describing the available evidence that pertains to a policy and tying the policy to evidence instead of standard-of-care practices or the beliefs of experts. The pertinent evidence must be identified, described, and analyzed. The policymakers must determine whether the policy is justified past the evidence. A rationale must be written."[24] He discussed testify-based policies in several other papers published in JAMA in the spring of 1990.[24] [25] Those papers were part of a series of 28 published in JAMA between 1990 and 1997 on formal methods for designing population-level guidelines and policies.[26]

Medical didactics [edit]

The term 'evidence-based medicine' was introduced slightly subsequently, in the context of medical education. In the autumn of 1990, Gordon Guyatt used it in an unpublished clarification of a programme at McMaster University for prospective or new medical students.[27] Guyatt and others kickoff published the term 2 years later (1992) to depict a new arroyo to teaching the practise of medicine.[two]

In 1996, David Sackett and colleagues clarified the definition of this tributary of evidence-based medicine as "the conscientious, explicit and judicious utilize of current best testify in making decisions nigh the intendance of individual patients. ... [It] means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best bachelor external clinical evidence from systematic research."[ane] This co-operative of evidence-based medicine aims to make individual decision making more structured and objective by better reflecting the evidence from research.[28] [29] Population-based data are applied to the intendance of an individual patient,[30] while respecting the fact that practitioners take clinical expertise reflected in constructive and efficient diagnosis and thoughtful identification and compassionate use of private patients' predicaments, rights, and preferences.[one]

Between 1993 and 2000, the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group at McMaster University published the methods to a broad physician audience in a series of 25 "Users' Guides to the Medical Literature" in JAMA. In 1995 Rosenberg and Donald defined individual-level, bear witness-based medicine as "the process of finding, appraising, and using contemporaneous research findings as the ground for medical decisions."[31] In 2010, Greenhalgh used a definition that emphasized quantitative methods: "the use of mathematical estimates of the risk of benefit and harm, derived from high-quality research on population samples, to inform clinical decision-making in the diagnosis, investigation or management of individual patients."[32] [1]

The 2 original definitions[ which? ] highlight important differences in how evidence-based medicine is applied to populations versus individuals. When designing guidelines applied to big groups of people in settings with relatively niggling opportunity for modification past individual physicians, evidence-based policymaking emphasizes that good show should exist to document a test's or treatment'southward effectiveness.[33] In the setting of individual controlling, practitioners can exist given greater latitude in how they interpret enquiry and combine it with their clinical judgment.[one] [34] In 2005, Eddy offered an umbrella definition for the two branches of EBM: "Show-based medicine is a set up of principles and methods intended to ensure that to the greatest extent possible, medical decisions, guidelines, and other types of policies are based on and consistent with good evidence of effectiveness and do good."[35]

Progress [edit]

In the surface area of evidence-based guidelines and policies, the explicit insistence on show of effectiveness was introduced by the American Cancer Society in 1980.[36] The U.South. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) began issuing guidelines for preventive interventions based on prove-based principles in 1984.[37] In 1985, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association applied strict evidence-based criteria for roofing new technologies.[38] Outset in 1987, specialty societies such as the American College of Physicians, and voluntary wellness organizations such as the American Heart Association, wrote many evidence-based guidelines. In 1991, Kaiser Permanente, a managed care arrangement in the United states of america, began an testify-based guidelines program.[39] In 1991, Richard Smith wrote an editorial in the British Medical Journal and introduced the ideas of bear witness-based policies in the UK.[xl] In 1993, the Cochrane Collaboration created a network of xiii countries to produce systematic reviews and guidelines.[41] In 1997, the United states Agency for Healthcare Enquiry and Quality (AHRQ, so known equally the Bureau for Health Intendance Policy and Research, or AHCPR) established Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) to produce show reports and technology assessments to support the evolution of guidelines.[42] In the same year, a National Guideline Clearinghouse that followed the principles of bear witness-based policies was created past AHRQ, the AMA, and the American Association of Wellness Plans (at present America's Health Insurance Plans).[43] In 1999, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Overnice) was created in the Britain.[44]

In the surface area of medical pedagogy, medical schools in Canada, the US, the United kingdom, Commonwealth of australia, and other countries[45] [46] now offering programs that teach show-based medicine. A 2009 study of UK programs found that more than half of UK medical schools offered some grooming in evidence-based medicine, although the methods and content varied considerably, and EBM teaching was restricted past lack of curriculum time, trained tutors and instruction materials.[47] Many programs take been developed to help individual physicians gain meliorate access to testify. For instance, UpToDate was created in the early 1990s.[48] The Cochrane Collaboration began publishing evidence reviews in 1993.[39] In 1995, BMJ Publishing Group launched Clinical Evidence, a 6-monthly journal that provided brief summaries of the electric current land of evidence about important clinical questions for clinicians.[49]

Current practice [edit]

By 2000, utilise of the term 'evidence-based' had extended to other levels of the wellness intendance system. An example is evidence-based health services, which seek to increment the competence of health service decision makers and the practice of show-based medicine at the organizational or institutional level.[50]

The multiple tributaries of bear witness-based medicine share an emphasis on the importance of incorporating evidence from formal research in medical policies and decisions. However, considering they differ on the extent to which they require skillful evidence of effectiveness earlier promoting a guideline or payment policy, a distinction is sometimes made betwixt prove-based medicine and science-based medicine, which also takes into business relationship factors such every bit prior plausibility and compatibility with established science (as when medical organizations promote controversial treatments such as acupuncture).[51] Differences besides exist regarding the extent to which information technology is feasible to incorporate individual-level data in decisions. Thus, show-based guidelines and policies may not readily 'hybridise' with experience-based practices orientated towards upstanding clinical judgement, and can atomic number 82 to contradictions, contest, and unintended crises.[18] The near constructive 'knowledge leaders' (managers and clinical leaders) utilize a wide range of management knowledge in their decision making, rather than just formal evidence.[19] Evidence-based guidelines may provide the basis for governmentality in health intendance, and consequently play a central role in the governance of contemporary health intendance systems.[20]

Methods [edit]

Steps [edit]

The steps for designing explicit, evidence-based guidelines were described in the belatedly 1980s: formulate the question (population, intervention, comparison intervention, outcomes, time horizon, setting); search the literature to identify studies that inform the question; interpret each study to determine precisely what it says about the question; if several studies accost the question, synthesize their results (meta-analysis); summarize the bear witness in evidence tables; compare the benefits, harms and costs in a balance sheet; draw a decision near the preferred practice; write the guideline; write the rationale for the guideline; have others review each of the previous steps; implement the guideline.[17]

For the purposes of medical education and private-level decision making, v steps of EBM in practice were described in 1992[52] and the experience of delegates attention the 2003 Conference of Show-Based Health Care Teachers and Developers was summarized into five steps and published in 2005.[53] This five-step procedure can broadly be categorized every bit follows:

  1. Translation of dubiety to an answerable question; includes critical questioning, study design and levels of evidence[54]
  2. Systematic retrieval of the all-time evidence available[55]
  3. Critical appraisement of evidence for internal validity that tin can be broken down into aspects regarding:[56]
    • Systematic errors as a upshot of selection bias, information bias and confounding
    • Quantitative aspects of diagnosis and handling
    • The event size and aspects regarding its precision
    • Clinical importance of results
    • External validity or generalizability
  4. Application of results in practice[57]
  5. Evaluation of functioning[58]

Evidence reviews [edit]

Systematic reviews of published research studies are a major part of the evaluation of particular treatments. The Cochrane Collaboration is one of the best-known organisations that conducts systematic reviews. Like other producers of systematic reviews, it requires authors to provide a detailed study protocol too as a reproducible plan of their literature search and evaluations of the evidence.[59] Later the best evidence is assessed, treatment is categorized every bit (1) likely to be beneficial, (2) likely to exist harmful, or (three) without show to support either benefit or harm.

A 2007 analysis of 1,016 systematic reviews from all 50 Cochrane Collaboration Review Groups establish that 44% of the reviews ended that the intervention was probable to be benign, 7% ended that the intervention was likely to be harmful, and 49% concluded that evidence did not support either benefit or harm. 96% recommended further research.[60] In 2017, a study assessed the part of systematic reviews produced by Cochrane Collaboration to inform US individual payers' policymaking; it showed that although the medical policy documents of major Usa private payers were informed by Cochrane systematic reviews, in that location was still scope to encourage the further use.[61]

Assessing the quality of prove [edit]

Show-based medicine categorizes unlike types of clinical evidence and rates or grades them[62] according to the force of their freedom from the various biases that beset medical inquiry. For example, the strongest evidence for therapeutic interventions is provided past systematic review of randomized, well-blinded, placebo-controlled trials with allocation darkening and complete follow-up involving a homogeneous patient population and medical condition. In contrast, patient testimonials, case reports, and even good stance take little value as proof because of the placebo outcome, the biases inherent in ascertainment and reporting of cases, and difficulties in ascertaining who is an proficient (however, some critics have argued that skilful opinion "does not belong in the rankings of the quality of empirical evidence considering information technology does not represent a form of empirical evidence" and keep that "expert opinion would seem to be a separate, complex type of cognition that would not fit into hierarchies otherwise express to empirical show alone.").[63]

Several organizations have developed grading systems for assessing the quality of testify. For instance, in 1989 the U.S. Preventive Services Task Forcefulness (USPSTF) put forth the following system:[64]

  • Level I: Evidence obtained from at to the lowest degree one properly designed randomized controlled trial.
  • Level II-i: Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization.
  • Level II-two: Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort studies or case-control studies, preferably from more than one center or enquiry group.
  • Level Ii-iii: Evidence obtained from multiple fourth dimension series designs with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled trials might also be regarded equally this blazon of evidence.
  • Level III: Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of good committees.

Another instance are the Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence published by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. First released in September 2000, the Levels of Testify provide a style to rank evidence for claims well-nigh prognosis, diagnosis, handling benefits, handling harms, and screening, which nearly grading schemes exercise not address. The original CEBM Levels were Evidence-Based On Call to make the process of finding evidence viable and its results explicit. In 2011, an international team redesigned the Oxford CEBM Levels to make them more understandable and to take into account recent developments in evidence ranking schemes. The Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence have been used by patients and clinicians, as well equally by experts to develop clinical guidelines, such as recommendations for the optimal employ of phototherapy and topical therapy in psoriasis[65] and guidelines for the use of the BCLC staging system for diagnosing and monitoring hepatocellular carcinoma in Canada.[66]

In 2000, a organization was developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (Course) working group. The Form system takes into business relationship more dimensions than merely the quality of medical enquiry.[67] It requires users who are performing an assessment of the quality of evidence, usually as part of a systematic review, to consider the bear on of different factors on their conviction in the results. Authors of GRADE tables assign 1 of four levels to evaluate the quality of prove, on the basis of their confidence that the observed consequence (a numeric value) is close to the true upshot. The confidence value is based on judgments assigned in five different domains in a structured manner.[68] The GRADE working group defines 'quality of evidence' and 'force of recommendations' based on the quality every bit 2 different concepts that are commonly dislocated with each other.[68]

Systematic reviews may include randomized controlled trials that take low risk of bias, or observational studies that have high risk of bias. In the instance of randomized controlled trials, the quality of testify is loftier but can be downgraded in 5 different domains.[69]

  • Gamble of bias: A judgment made on the ground of the chance that bias in included studies has influenced the guess of effect.
  • Imprecision: A judgment fabricated on the basis of the chance that the observed approximate of outcome could change completely.
  • Indirectness: A judgment made on the basis of the differences in characteristics of how the study was conducted and how the results are really going to exist applied.
  • Inconsistency: A judgment fabricated on the basis of the variability of results across the included studies.
  • Publication bias: A judgment made on the basis of the question whether all the inquiry evidence has been taken to business relationship.

In the instance of observational studies per GRADE, the quality of bear witness starts off lower and may exist upgraded in three domains in addition to being subject to downgrading.[69]

  • Large issue: Methodologically strong studies evidence that the observed effect is and so large that the probability of it changing completely is less likely.
  • Plausible confounding would change the effect: Despite the presence of a possible confounding factor that is expected to reduce the observed effect, the effect estimate all the same shows pregnant effect.
  • Dose response gradient: The intervention used becomes more constructive with increasing dose. This suggests that a further increase will likely bring about more issue.

Meaning of the levels of quality of evidence as per GRADE:[68]

  • High Quality Evidence: The authors are very confident that the presented guess lies very close to the true value. In other words, the probability is very depression that further enquiry will completely modify the presented conclusions.
  • Moderate Quality Evidence: The authors are confident that the presented approximate lies close to the truthful value, but it is also possible that it may be essentially unlike. In other words, further research may completely change the conclusions.
  • Low Quality Testify: The authors are not confident in the effect estimate, and the true value may be substantially unlike. In other words, further research is likely to change the presented conclusions completely.
  • Very Low Quality Evidence: The authors do not take any conviction in the estimate and it is likely that the true value is essentially unlike from it. In other words, new research will probably change the presented conclusions completely.

Categories of recommendations [edit]

In guidelines and other publications, recommendation for a clinical service is classified past the balance of risk versus do good and the level of evidence on which this information is based. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Forcefulness uses the post-obit system:[70]

  • Level A: Good scientific bear witness suggests that the benefits of the clinical service essentially outweigh the potential risks. Clinicians should discuss the service with eligible patients.
  • Level B: At least fair scientific evidence suggests that the benefits of the clinical service outweighs the potential risks. Clinicians should talk over the service with eligible patients.
  • Level C: At least fair scientific bear witness suggests that the clinical service provides benefits, but the residue between benefits and risks is too close for general recommendations. Clinicians need not offer it unless individual considerations apply.
  • Level D: At least fair scientific prove suggests that the risks of the clinical service outweigh potential benefits. Clinicians should not routinely offer the service to asymptomatic patients.
  • Level I: Scientific evidence is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting, such that the risk versus benefit balance cannot exist assessed. Clinicians should aid patients understand the incertitude surrounding the clinical service.

Grade guideline panelists may make strong or weak recommendations on the ground of further criteria. Some of the of import criteria are the balance betwixt desirable and undesirable furnishings (not because cost), the quality of the evidence, values and preferences and costs (resource utilization).[69]

Despite the differences between systems, the purposes are the same: to guide users of clinical research information on which studies are likely to be most valid. Notwithstanding, the private studies still crave conscientious critical appraisal.

Statistical measures [edit]

Evidence-based medicine attempts to express clinical benefits of tests and treatments using mathematical methods. Tools used by practitioners of show-based medicine include:

  • Likelihood ratio The pre-test odds of a particular diagnosis, multiplied by the likelihood ratio, determines the mail-test odds. (Odds can be calculated from, and and then converted to, the [more familiar] probability.) This reflects Bayes' theorem. The differences in likelihood ratio betwixt clinical tests tin be used to prioritize clinical tests according to their usefulness in a given clinical situation.
  • AUC-ROC The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) reflects the human relationship betwixt sensitivity and specificity for a given examination. High-quality tests will accept an AUC-ROC approaching 1, and high-quality publications almost clinical tests volition provide data almost the AUC-ROC. Cutoff values for positive and negative tests can influence specificity and sensitivity, but they do non affect AUC-ROC.
  • Number needed to care for (NNT)/Number needed to impairment (NNH). NNT and NNH are ways of expressing the effectiveness and safety, respectively, of interventions in a way that is clinically meaningful. NNT is the number of people who need to be treated in order to achieve the desired outcome (e.m. survival from cancer) in one patient. For instance, if a treatment increases the hazard of survival by five%, and then 20 people need to exist treated in order for 1 additional patient to survive because of the treatment. The concept can also be applied to diagnostic tests. For example, if 1,339 women age l–59 need to be invited for breast cancer screening over a 10-year flow in guild to prevent one woman from dying of breast cancer,[71] then the NNT for being invited to breast cancer screening is 1339.

Quality of clinical trials [edit]

Evidence-based medicine attempts to objectively evaluate the quality of clinical inquiry past critically assessing techniques reported by researchers in their publications.

  • Trial blueprint considerations: Loftier-quality studies have clearly divers eligibility criteria and have minimal missing data.
  • Generalizability considerations: Studies may only exist applicable to narrowly divers patient populations and may not exist generalizable to other clinical contexts.
  • Follow-up: Sufficient fourth dimension for defined outcomes to occur can influence the prospective written report outcomes and the statistical ability of a study to observe differences between a handling and control arm.
  • Ability: A mathematical adding tin determine whether the number of patients is sufficient to detect a departure between treatment arms. A negative study may reflect a lack of benefit, or merely a lack of sufficient quantities of patients to detect a difference.

Limitations and criticism [edit]

In that location are a number of limitations and criticisms of evidence-based medicine.[72] [73] Two widely cited categorization schemes for the diverse published critiques of EBM include the three-fold division of Straus and McAlister ("limitations universal to the practise of medicine, limitations unique to evidence-based medicine and misperceptions of prove-based-medicine")[74] and the five-point categorization of Cohen, Stavri and Hersh (EBM is a poor philosophic basis for medicine, defines evidence likewise narrowly, is non bear witness-based, is limited in usefulness when applied to private patients, or reduces the autonomy of the physician/patient relationship).[75]

In no item guild, some published objections include:

  • Enquiry produced by EBM, such equally from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), may not be relevant for all treatment situations.[76] Research tends to focus on specific populations, but individual persons can vary essentially from population norms. Because certain population segments have been historically under-researched (due to reasons such as race, gender, age, and co-morbid diseases), evidence from RCTs may not be generalizable to those populations.[77] Thus, EBM applies to groups of people, simply this should not preclude clinicians from using their personal experience in deciding how to care for each patient. One author advises that "the knowledge gained from clinical research does not directly answer the primary clinical question of what is best for the patient at paw" and suggests that evidence-based medicine should not disbelieve the value of clinical experience.[63] Some other author stated that "the practice of evidence-based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best bachelor external clinical show from systematic research."[78]
  • The theoretical platonic of EBM (that every narrow clinical question, of which hundreds of thousands can exist, would be answered by meta-analysis and systematic reviews of multiple RCTs) faces the limitation that inquiry (especially the RCTs themselves) is expensive; thus, in reality, for the foreseeable future, the demand for EBM will always be much college than the supply, and the best humanity can exercise is to triage the application of scarce resources.
  • Inquiry tin can exist influenced by biases such as publication bias and conflict of interest in academic publishing. For instance, studies with conflicts due to manufacture funding are more than likely to favor their production.[79] [80]
  • A lag exists betwixt when the RCT is conducted and when its results are published.[81]
  • A lag exists between when results are published and when they are properly applied.[82]
  • Hypocognition (the absence of a uncomplicated, consolidated mental framework into which new data can exist placed) can hinder the application of EBM.[83]
  • Values: while patient values are considered in the original definition of EBM, the importance of values is not commonly emphasized in EBM training, a potential problem under electric current study.[84] [85] [86]

A 2018 study, "Why all randomised controlled trials produce biased results", assessed the 10 most cited RCTs and argued that trials confront a wide range of biases and constraints, from trials just being able to study a small ready of questions amenable to randomisation and by and large simply existence able to assess the boilerplate treatment event of a sample, to limitations in extrapolating results to some other context, among many others outlined in the study.[72]

Application of evidence in clinical settings [edit]

Despite the emphasis on bear witness-based medicine, unsafe or ineffective medical practices proceed to be practical, considering of patient need for tests or treatments, because of failure to admission information most the evidence, or because of the rapid step of change in the scientific prove.[87] For example, betwixt 2003 and 2017, the testify shifted on hundreds of medical practices, including whether hormone replacement therapy was safe, whether babies should be given certain vitamins, and whether antidepressant drugs are effective in people with Alzheimer'southward affliction.[88] Even when the testify unequivocally shows that a treatment is either not safe or not effective, it may take many years for other treatments to be adopted.[87] In other cases, significant change tin can crave a generation of physicians to retire or dice and be replaced past physicians who were trained with more recent evidence.[87]

Physicians may also reject evidence that conflicts with their anecdotal feel or considering of cerebral biases – for example, a vivid memory of a rare just shocking outcome (the availability heuristic), such as a patient dying after refusing handling.[87] They may overtreat to "do something" or to address a patient's emotional needs.[87] They may worry about malpractice charges based on a discrepancy between what the patient expects and what the testify recommends.[87] They may also overtreat or provide ineffective treatments because the treatment feels biologically plausible.[87]

Pedagogy [edit]

Preparation in bear witness based medicine is offered across the continuum of medical education.[89]

The Berlin questionnaire and the Fresno Test[xc] [91] are validated instruments for assessing the effectiveness of pedagogy in evidence-based medicine.[92] [93] These questionnaires have been used in diverse settings.[94] [95]

A Campbell systematic review that included 24 trials examined the effectiveness of e-learning in improving show-based wellness care knowledge and practice. It was found that due east-learning, compared to no learning, improves evidence-based health intendance cognition and skills merely not attitudes and behaviour. No difference in outcomes is present when comparison due east-learning with contiguous learning. Combining east-learning and face-to-face learning (blended learning) has a positive impact on prove-based knowledge, skills, attitude and behaviour.[96] As a form of e-learning, some medical school students engage in editing Wikipedia to increment their EBM skills,[97] and some students construct EBM materials to develop their skills in communicating medical knowledge.[98]

Come across besides [edit]

  • Anecdotal evidence
  • Bibliography of evidence-based medicine
  • Clinical decision support system (CDSS)
  • Clinical epidemiology
  • Consensus (medical)
  • Epidemiology
  • Evidence-based dentistry
  • Show-based design
  • Testify-based nursing
  • Evidence-based policy
  • Testify-based practices
  • Evidence-based management
  • Show-based enquiry (Metascience)
  • Medical algorithm
  • Paradigm shift – the social process past which scientific evidence is somewhen adopted
  • Personalized medicine
  • Policy-based evidence making
  • Precision medicine

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c d east Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Grayness JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS (1996). "Show based medicine: what it is and what information technology isn't". BMJ. 312 (7023): 71–72. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71. PMC2349778. PMID 8555924.
  2. ^ a b Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (November 1992). "Testify-based medicine. A new approach to education the exercise of medicine". JAMA. 268 (17): 2420–25. CiteSeerX10.1.1.684.3783. doi:10.1001/JAMA.1992.03490170092032. PMID 1404801.
  3. ^ Brater DC, Daly WJ (May 2000). "Clinical pharmacology in the Middle Ages: principles that presage the 21st century". Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 67 (5): 447–fifty See p. 449. doi:10.1067/mcp.2000.106465. PMID 10824622. S2CID 45980791.
  4. ^ Daly WJ, Brater DC (2000). "Medieval contributions to the search for truth in clinical medicine". Perspect. Biol. Med. 43 (4): 530–40 Run across p. 536. doi:10.1353/pbm.2000.0037. PMID 11058989. S2CID 30485275.
  5. ^ John Baptista Van Helmont; John Chandler (translator) (1662). Oriatrike, or Physick Refined (English language translation of Ortus medicinae).
  6. ^ Lind, James (2018). Treatise on the scurvy. in three parts. ... by james lind ... the second edition corrected, ... with additions and improvements. Place of publication not identified: GALE ECCO, PRINT EDITIONS. ISBN978-1-379-46980-3.
  7. ^ Poisson, Dulong; Larrey, Double (2001) [1835]. "Statistical enquiry on weather condition acquired by calculi by Medico Civiale". Int J Epidemiol. xxx (6): 1246–49. doi:10.1093/ije/thirty.6.1246. PMID 11821317. Archived from the original on 2005-04-29.
  8. ^ Guyatt GH. Testify-Based Medicine [editorial]. ACP Journal Club 1991:A-sixteen. (Annals of Internal Medicine; vol. 114, suppl. 2).
  9. ^ "Development of bear witness-based medicine explored in oral history video, AMA, January 27, 2014".
  10. ^ Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM (November 1995). "The need for testify-based medicine". J R Soc Med. 88 (xi): 620–4. PMC1295384. PMID 8544145.
  11. ^ InformedHealth.org [Internet]. Cologne, Frg: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG); 2006-. The history of evidence-based medicine. 2016 Jun 15 [Updated 2016 Sep viii]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK390299/
  12. ^ Alvan R. Feinstein (1967). Clinical Sentence. Williams & Wilkins.
  13. ^ Cochrane A.L. (1972). Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.
  14. ^ Wennberg J.Due east.; Gittelsohn A. (1973). "Small Area Variations in Health Care Commitment". Science. 182 (4117): 1102–08. Bibcode:1973Sci...182.1102W. doi:10.1126/science.182.4117.1102. PMID 4750608. S2CID 43819003.
  15. ^ Eddy, David Thousand. (1982). "18 Probabilistic Reasoning in Clinical Medicine: Problems and Opportunities". In Kahneman, D.; Slovic, P.; Tversky, A. (eds.). Judgment Nether Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press. pp. 249–67. ISBN978-0-521-28414-1.
  16. ^ Boil DM (1982). "Clinical Policies and the Quality of Clinical Practice". New England Journal of Medicine. 307 (6): 343–47. doi:10.1056/nejm198208053070604. PMID 7088099.
  17. ^ a b Boil DM (1984). "Variations in Physician Exercise The Part of Uncertainty". Wellness Affairs. 3 (2): 74–89. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.3.2.74. PMID 6469198.
  18. ^ a b Eddy DM (1988). "The Quality of Medical Evidence: Implications for Quality of Care". Health Affairs. 7 (ane): 19–32. doi:ten.1377/hlthaff.7.1.19. PMID 3360391.
  19. ^ a b Feinstein AR (1985). Clinical Epidemiology: The Architecture of Clinical Inquiry. ISBN978-0-7216-1308-half-dozen.
  20. ^ a b Sackett, Dave (2006). Haynes, R. Brian (ed.). Clinical Epidemiology: How to Do Clinical Practice Research. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN978-0-7817-4524-six.
  21. ^ Chassin MR, Kosecoff J, Solomon DH, Brook RH (1987). "How Coronary Angiography Is Used: Clinical Determinants of Appropriateness". JAMA. 258 (eighteen): 2543–47. doi:10.1001/jama.258.xviii.2543. PMID 3312657.
  22. ^ Eddy DM (1992). A Manual for Assessing Wellness Practices and Designing Do Policies. American College of Physicians. ISBN978-0-943126-18-0.
  23. ^ Constitute of Medicine (1990). Field, 1000.J.; Lohr, K.N. (eds.). Clinical Exercise Guidelines: Directions for a New Program. Washington, DC: National University of Sciences Printing. p. 32. doi:10.17226/1626. ISBN978-0-309-07666-1. PMC5310095. PMID 25144032.
  24. ^ a b Eddy DM (1990). "Do Policies: Guidelines for Methods". JAMA. 263 (thirteen): 1839–41. doi:10.1001/jama.263.xiii.1839. PMID 2313855.
  25. ^ Eddy DM (1990). "Guidelines for Policy Statements". Journal of the American Medical Association. 263 (sixteen): 2239–43. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440160101046. PMID 2319689.
  26. ^ Boil DM (1996). Clinical Determination Making: From Theory to Practise. A Drove of Essays. American Medical Association. ISBN978-0-7637-0143-seven.
  27. ^ Howick, Jeremy H. (2011-02-23). The Philosophy of Evidence-based Medicine. Wiley. p. fifteen. ISBN978-1-4443-4266-6.
  28. ^ Katz, David Fifty. (2001). Clinical Epidemiology & Testify-Based Medicine: Central Principles of Clinical Reasoning & Research . SAGE. ISBN978-0-7619-1939-1.
  29. ^ Grobbee, D.East.; Hoes, Arno Due west. (2009). Clinical Epidemiology: Principles, Methods, and Applications for Clinical Enquiry. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN978-0-7637-5315-three.
  30. ^ Doi, South.A.R. (2012). Understanding Evidence in Health Intendance: Using Clinical Epidemiology. South Yarra, VIC, Australia: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN978-ane-4202-5669-7.
  31. ^ Rosenberg W, Donald A (1995). "Evidence-based Medicine: An approach to Clinical Problem Solving". BMJ. 310 (6987): 1122–26. doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6987.1122. PMC2549505. PMID 7742682.
  32. ^ Greenhalgh, Trisha (2010). How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Show-Based Medicine (quaternary ed.) . John Wiley & Sons. p. one. ISBN978-i-4443-9036-0.
  33. ^ Eddy DM (1990). "Do Policies – Where Do They Come up from?". Journal of the American Medical Association. 263 (9): 1265, 1269, 1272, 1275. doi:10.1001/jama.263.nine.1265. PMID 2304243.
  34. ^ Greenhalgh, Trisha (December 2001). "The limits of evidence-based medicine". Respiratory Intendance. 46 (12): 1435–twoscore. PMID 11728302.
  35. ^ Eddy, DM (2005). "Testify-based Medicine: a Unified Approach". Health Affairs. 24 (1): 9–17. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.9. PMID 15647211.
  36. ^ Boil DM (1980). "ACS report on the cancer-related health checkup". CA Cancer J Clin. 30 (4): 193–240. doi:10.3322/canjclin.30.4.194. PMID 6774802.
  37. ^ "About the USPSTF". Archived from the original on August 15, 2014. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
  38. ^ Rettig, R.A.; Jacobson, P.D.; Farquhar, C.Chiliad.; Aubry, W.Grand. (2007). False Hope: Bone Marrow Transplantation for Breast Cancer: Bone Marrow Transplantation for Breast Cancer. Oxford Academy Press. p. 183. ISBN978-0-19-974824-2.
  39. ^ a b Davino-Ramaya C, Krause LK, Robbins CW, Harris JS, Koster Thousand, Chan Westward, Tom GI (2012). "Transparency matters: Kaiser Permanente'southward National Guideline Program methodological processes". Perm J. 16 (1): 55–62. doi:10.7812/tpp/11-134. PMC3327114. PMID 22529761.
  40. ^ Smith RJ (1991). "Where's the Wisdom: The Poverty of Medical Evidence". BMJ. 303 (6806): 798–99. doi:x.1136/bmj.303.6806.798. PMC1671173. PMID 1932964.
  41. ^ "The Cochrane Collaboration". Retrieved August 21, 2014.
  42. ^ "Agency for Wellness Care Policy and Research". Retrieved Baronial 21, 2014.
  43. ^ "National Guideline Clearinghouse". Archived from the original on August 19, 2014. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
  44. ^ "National Institute for Health and Care Excellence". Retrieved August 21, 2014.
  45. ^ Ilic, D; Maloney, S (February 2014). "Methods of pedagogy medical trainees bear witness-based medicine: a systematic review". Medical Instruction. 48 (2): 124–35. doi:10.1111/medu.12288. PMID 24528395. S2CID 12765787.
  46. ^ Maggio, LA; Tannery, NH; Chen, HC; ten Cate, O; O'Brien, B (July 2013). "Evidence-based medicine training in undergraduate medical education: a review and critique of the literature published 2006–2011". Academic Medicine. 88 (7): 1022–8. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182951959. PMID 23702528.
  47. ^ Meats E, Heneghan C, Crilly M, Glasziou P (April 2009). "Evidence-based medicine education in United kingdom medical schools". Med Teach. 31 (4): 332–37. doi:ten.1080/01421590802572791. PMID 19404893. S2CID 21133182.
  48. ^ "UpToDate". Retrieved August 21, 2014.
  49. ^ "Clinical Evidence". Retrieved August 21, 2014.
  50. ^ Gray, J. A. Muir (2009). Testify-based Health Intendance & Public Wellness. Churchill Livingstone. ISBN978-0-443-10123-half-dozen.
  51. ^ "AAFP promotes acupuncture". Scientific discipline-Based Medicine. nine October 2018. Retrieved 12 January 2019.
  52. ^ Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH (1992). "Critical appraisal of therapeutic interventions in the intensive care unit: human monoclonal antibiotic handling in sepsis. Journal Order of the Hamilton Regional Critical Care Group". J Intensive Care Med. 7 (6): 275–82. doi:x.1177/088506669200700601. PMID 10147956. S2CID 7194293.
  53. ^ Dawes Thou, Summerskill West, Glasziou P, et al. (Jan 2005). "Sicily statement on bear witness-based practice". BMC Med Educ. 5 (1): ane. doi:x.1186/1472-6920-5-1. PMC544887. PMID 15634359.
  54. ^ Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS (1995). "The well-built clinical question: a key to testify-based decisions". ACP J. Club. 123 (three): A12–13. doi:x.7326/ACPJC-1995-123-3-A12. PMID 7582737.
  55. ^ Rosenberg WM, Deeks J, Lusher A, Snowball R, Dooley G, Sackett D (1998). "Improving searching skills and evidence retrieval". J R Coll Physicians Lond. 32 (half dozen): 557–63. PMID 9881313.
  56. ^ Doi, S.A.R. (2012). Understanding Show in Health Intendance: Using Clinical Epidemiology. Southward Yarra, VIC, Commonwealth of australia: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN978-one-4202-5669-7.
  57. ^ Epling J, Smucny J, Patil A, Tudiver F (October 2002). "Teaching prove-based medicine skills through a residency-developed guideline". Fam Med. 34 (ix): 646–48. PMID 12455246.
  58. ^ Ivers, North; Jamtvedt, K; Flottorp, S; Young, JM; Odgaard-Jensen, J; French, SD; O'Brien, MA; Johansen, M; Grimshaw, J; Oxman, Advertisement (xiii June 2012). "Inspect and feedback: effects on professional person practice and healthcare outcomes". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 6 (6): CD000259. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3. PMID 22696318.
  59. ^ Tanjong-Ghogomu, E; Tugwell, P; Welch, V (2009). "Evidence-based medicine and the Cochrane Collaboration". Bulletin of the NYU Hospital for Articulation Diseases. 67 (ii): 198–205. PMID 19583554. Archived from the original on 2013-06-01.
  60. ^ El Dib RP, Atallah AN, Andriolo RB (August 2007). "Mapping the Cochrane show for decision making in wellness care". J Eval Clin Pract. 13 (four): 689–92. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00886.10. PMID 17683315.
  61. ^ Singh A, Hussain S, Najmi AK (2017). "Role of Cochrane Reviews in informing US private payers' policies". Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. ten (4): 293–331. doi:x.1111/jebm.12278. PMID 29193899. S2CID 22796658.
  62. ^ "EBM: Levels of Show". Essential Evidence Plus. Retrieved 2012-02-23 .
  63. ^ a b Tonelli MR (Nov 1999). "In defense of expert opinion". Acad Med. 74 (xi): 1187–92. doi:10.1097/00001888-199911000-00010. PMID 10587679.
  64. ^ U.S. Preventive Services Job Forcefulness (Baronial 1989). Guide to clinical preventive services: written report of the U.South. Preventive Services Job Force. DIANE Publishing. pp. 24–. ISBN978-ane-56806-297-6.
  65. ^ OCEBM Levels of Show Working Group (May 2016). "The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2'".
  66. ^ Paul, C.; Gallini, A.; Archier, E.; et al. (2012). "Prove-Based Recommendations on Topical Handling and Phototherapy of Psoriasis: Systematic Review and Expert Opinion of a Panel of Dermatologists". Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. 26 (Suppl three): ane–10. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3083.2012.04518.x. PMID 22512675. S2CID 36103291.
  67. ^ "Welcome to the Class working grouping". www.gradeworkinggroup.org. Archived from the original on 2006-02-07. Retrieved 2007-09-24 .
  68. ^ a b c Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. (April 2011). "Form guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of bear witness". J Clin Epidemiol. 64 (4): 401–6. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015. PMID 21208779.
  69. ^ a b c Schünemann H, Brożek J, Oxman A, eds. (2009). GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and force of recommendation (Version iii.two ed.).
    "GRADEPro". Cochrane Informatics and Knowledge Management Department. Archived from the original on 2016-03-05. Retrieved 2016-03-01 .
    Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt M, Oxman A, eds. (2013). GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated Oct 2013. The Grade Working Group. Retrieved 2019-09-03 .
  70. ^ Sherman, M; Burak K; Maroun J; et al. (2012). "Multidisciplinary Canadian Consensus Recommendations for the Direction and Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma'". Current Oncology. 18 (5): 228–40. doi:10.3747/co.v18i5.952. PMC3185900. PMID 21980250.
  71. ^ "Patient Compliance with statins" Bandolier Review 2004 Archived 2015-05-12 at archive.today
  72. ^ a b Krauss, Alexander (2018). "Why all randomised controlled trials produce biased results" (PDF). Annals of Medicine. 50 (4): 312–322. doi:10.1080/07853890.2018.1453233. PMID 29616838. S2CID 4971775.
  73. ^ Timmermans S, Mauck A (2005). "The promises and pitfalls of bear witness-based medicine". Wellness Aff (Millwood). 24 (i): 18–28. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.18. PMID 15647212.
  74. ^ Straus, SE; McAlister, FA (three October 2000). "Evidence-based medicine: a commentary on common criticisms" (PDF). Canadian Medical Association Journal. 163 (7): 837–41. PMC80509. PMID 11033714.
  75. ^ Cohen, AM; Stavri, PZ; Hersh, WR (February 2004). "A categorization and analysis of the criticisms of Prove-Based Medicine" (PDF). International Journal of Medical Computer science. 73 (one): 35–43. CiteSeerXten.one.one.586.3699. doi:ten.1016/j.ijmedinf.2003.xi.002. PMID 15036077. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-07-03.
  76. ^ Upshur RE, VanDenKerkhof EG, Goel 5 (May 2001). "Meaning and measurement: an inclusive model of show in health care". J Eval Clin Pract. vii (2): 91–96. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00279.x. ISSN 1356-1294. PMID 11489034.
  77. ^ Rogers WA (April 2004). "Evidence based medicine and justice: a framework for looking at the affect of EBM upon vulnerable or disadvantaged groups". J Med Ideals. xxx (two): 141–45. doi:10.1136/jme.2003.007062. PMC1733835. PMID 15082806.
  78. ^ Sackett, DL; Rosenberg, WM; Gray, JA; Haynes, RB; Richardson, WS (January 1996). "Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't". BMJ. 312 (7023): 71–72. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71. PMC2349778. PMID 8555924.
  79. ^ Every-Palmer S, Howick J (May 2014). "How testify‐based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication". Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 20 (6): 908–14. doi:10.1111/jep.12147. PMID 24819404.
  80. ^ Friedman LS, Richter ED (January 2004). "Relationship Between Conflicts of Interest and Research Results". J Gen Intern Med. xix (1): 51–56. doi:ten.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30617.x. PMC1494677. PMID 14748860.
  81. ^ Yitschaky O, Yitschaky M, Zadik Y (May 2011). "Case study on trial: Do you, Md, swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and null but the truth?" (PDF). J Med Case Rep. five (1): 179. doi:10.1186/1752-1947-5-179. PMC3113995. PMID 21569508.
  82. ^ "Noesis Transfer in the ED: How to Get Bear witness Used". Best Evidence Healthcare Web log. Archived from the original on 8 October 2013. Retrieved eight October 2013.
  83. ^ Mariotto, A. (2010). "Hypocognition and evidence-based medicine". Internal Medicine Journal. 40 (ane): eighty–82. doi:x.1111/j.1445-5994.2009.02086.x. PMID 20561370. S2CID 24519238.
  84. ^ Yamada, Seiji; Slingsby, Brian Taylor; Inada, Megan K.; Derauf, David (2008-06-01). "Evidence-based public health: a critical perspective". Journal of Public Health. xvi (3): 169–172. doi:10.1007/s10389-007-0156-vii. ISSN 0943-1853. S2CID 652725.
  85. ^ Kelly, Thousand; Heath, I; Howick, J; Greenhalgh, T (2015). "The importance of values in evidence-based medicine". BMC Medical Ethics. 16 (69): 69. doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0063-iii. PMC4603687. PMID 26459219.
  86. ^ Fulford, KWM; Peile, H; Carroll, H (March 2012). Essential Values-Based Exercise. ISBN978-0-521-53025-5.
  87. ^ a b c d e f m Epstein, David (2017-02-22). "When Evidence Says No, But Doctors Say Yes". ProPublica. Retrieved 2017-02-24 .
  88. ^ Herrera-Perez, Diana; Haslam, Alyson; Crain, Tyler; Gill, Jennifer; Livingston, Catherine; Kaestner, Victoria; Hayes, Michael; Morgan, Dan; Cifu, Adam S (2019-06-11). "A comprehensive review of randomized clinical trials in three medical journals reveals 396 medical reversals". eLife. 8: e45183. doi:10.7554/eLife.45183. PMC6559784. PMID 31182188.
  89. ^ Dawes, G; Summerskill, W; Glasziou, P; Cartabellotta, A; Martin, J; Hopayian, K; Porzsolt, F; Burls, A; Osborne, J; 2d International Conference of Evidence-Based Wellness Intendance Teachers and, Developers. (5 January 2005). "Sicily statement on bear witness-based practise". BMC Medical Instruction. 5 (ane): ane. doi:x.1186/1472-6920-5-one. PMC544887. PMID 15634359.
  90. ^ Fritsche, L.; Greenhalgh, T.; Falck-Ytter, Y.; Neumayer, H.H.; Kunz, R. (2002). "Do brusque courses in evidence based medicine improve noesis and skills? Validation of Berlin questionnaire and earlier and after study of courses in evidence based medicine". BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.). 325 (7376): 1338–41. doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7376.1338. PMC137813. PMID 12468485.
  91. ^ Ramos, Thousand.D.; Schafer, Southward.; Tracz, S.K. (2003). "Validation of the Fresno test of competence in evidence based medicine". BMJ. 326 (7384): 319–21. doi:x.1136/bmj.326.7384.319. PMC143529. PMID 12574047.
    Fresno test
  92. ^ Shaneyfelt, T.; Baum, K.D.; Bell, D.; Feldstein, D.; Houston, TK; Kaatz, S; Whelan, C.; Greenish, 1000 (2006). "Instruments for evaluating education in evidence-based exercise: a systematic review". JAMA. 296 (ix): 1116–27. doi:10.1001/jama.296.9.1116. PMID 16954491.
  93. ^ Straus SE, Green ML, Bell DS, Badgett R, Davis D, Gerrity Grand, et al. (2004). "Evaluating the teaching of evidence based medicine: conceptual framework". BMJ. 329 (7473): 1029–32. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7473.1029. PMC524561. PMID 15514352.
  94. ^ Kunz, R.; Wegscheider, K.; Fritsche, L.; Schünemann, H.J.; Moyer, V.; Miller, D.; Boluyt, 50.; Falck-Ytter, Y.; Griffiths, P.; Bucher, H.C.; Timmer, A.; Meyerrose, J; Witt, Thou.; Dawes; Greenhalgh, T.; Guyatt, Chiliad.H. (2010). "Determinants of knowledge gain in show-based medicine brusk courses: an international assessment". Open Med. iv (1): e3–e10. doi:ten.2174/1874104501004010003. PMC3116678. PMID 21686291.
  95. ^ West CP, Jaeger TM, McDonald FS (2011). "Extended evaluation of a longitudinal medical school testify-based medicine curriculum". J Gen Intern Med. 26 (6): 611–xv. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1642-8. PMC3101983. PMID 21286836.
  96. ^ Rohwer, Anke; Motaze, Nkengafac Villyen; Rehfuess, Eva; Young, Taryn (2017). "E-learning of evidence-based health care (EBHC) to increase EBHC competencies in healthcare professionals: a systematic review". Campbell Systematic Reviews. iv: 1–147. doi:ten.4073/csr.2017.four.
  97. ^ Azzam, A.; Bresler, D.; Leon, A.; Maggio, L.; Whitaker, Eastward.; Heilman, J.; Orlowitz, J.; Swisher, V.; Rasberry, L.; Otoide, Chiliad.; Trotter, F.; Ross, Due west.; McCue, J.D. (February 2017). "Why Medical Schools Should Embrace Wikipedia: Final-Twelvemonth Medical Student Contributions to Wikipedia Articles for Academic Credit at One School". Bookish Medicine. 92 (2): 194–200. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001381. PMC5265689. PMID 27627633.
  98. ^ Maggio, Lauren A.; Willinsky, John M.; Costello, Joseph A.; Skinner, Nadine A.; Martin, Paolo C.; Dawson, Jennifer E. (2020). "Integrating Wikipedia editing into health professions education: a curricular inventory and review of the literature". Perspectives on Medical Didactics. 9 (6): 333–342. doi:10.1007/s40037-020-00620-i. ISSN 2212-2761. PMC7718341. PMID 33030643.

Bibliography [edit]

  • Doi, S.A.R. (2012). Agreement evidence in wellness care: Using clinical epidemiology. Due south Yarra, VIC, Australia: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN978-1-4202-5669-vii.
  • Grobbee, D.E.; Hoes, Arno W. (2009). Clinical Epidemiology: Principles, Methods, and Applications for Clinical Enquiry. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN978-0-7637-5315-iii.
  • Howick, Jeremy H. (2011). The Philosophy of Prove-based Medicine. Wiley. ISBN978-1-4051-9667-3.
  • Katz, David Fifty. (2001). Clinical Epidemiology & Evidence-Based Medicine: Fundamental Principles of Clinical Reasoning & Research . SAGE. ISBN978-0-7619-1939-1.
  • Stegenga, Jacob (2018). Intendance and Cure: An Introduction To Philosophy of Medicine. University of Chicago Printing. ISBN978-0-226-59517-7.

External links [edit]

  • Evidence-Based Medicine – An Oral History, JAMA and the BMJ, 2014. open access
  • Centre for Evidence-based Medicine at the University of Oxford.
  • Evidence-Based Medicine at Curlie

DOWNLOAD HERE

Posted by: jonesbountly.blogspot.com

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post

Iklan Banner setelah judul