clinical practice guidelines

临床实践指南
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:这项由澳大利亚辅助医学学院临床实践指南(CPG)工作组进行的合作研究旨在研究澳大利亚和新西兰救护车服务中的CPG开发实践。
    方法:采用定性的描述性设计,该研究利用主题分析从与11位积极参与CPG发展的专家的访谈中提取见解。这项研究采用了名词主义和建构主义的方法,认识到个人经验与护理人员领域CPG发展的现实之间的复杂联系。
    结果:关键发现揭示了CPG开发实践中的显著异质性,强调缺乏正式培训和对现有指导方针的严重依赖。该研究强调了项目管理灵活性方面的挑战,有限的研究能力,以及外部协商和资源利用的不一致。
    结论:研究建议采用项目管理框架,投资培训,并利用证据评估方法,如等级。它强调需要多学科团队和证据综合方面的正式专业知识,倡导有针对性的培训计划。筹资挑战突出了专门预算和资源分配合作努力的重要性。知识翻译和实施问题强调了证据评估和知识翻译培训计划在克服这些挑战方面的重要性。
    BACKGROUND: This collaborative study by The Australasian College of Paramedicine\'s Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) Working Group aimed to examine CPG development practices in Australian and New Zealand ambulance services.
    METHODS: Employing a qualitative descriptive design, the research utilised thematic analysis to extract insights from interviews with eleven experts actively involved in CPG development. The study embraced a nominalist and constructivist approach, recognising the intricate connection between individual experiences and the realities of CPG development in the paramedic field.
    RESULTS: Key findings revealed significant heterogeneity in CPG development practices, emphasising a lack of formal training and a substantial reliance on existing guidelines. The study highlighted challenges in project management flexibility, limited research capacity, and inconsistencies in external consultations and resource utilisation.
    CONCLUSIONS: The study recommends adopting project management frameworks, investing in training, and utilising evidence evaluation methodologies like GRADE. It emphasises the need for multidisciplinary teams and formal expertise in evidence synthesis, advocating for targeted training programs. Funding challenges highlight the importance of dedicated budgets and collaborative efforts for resource allocation. Knowledge translation and implementation issues underscore the significance of training programs for evidence evaluation and knowledge translation in overcoming these challenges.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:指南推荐开始双重联合抗高血压治疗,优选单药丸组合(SPC),在大多数高血压患者中。关于缩小临床实践与指南差距的证据有限。
    结果:蒙特卡罗模拟应用于110万名符合双重联合治疗资格的患者,这些患者来自先前进行的临床实践回顾性分析,医院统计,和英国的国家统计数据。我们提供了主要终点的10年Kaplan-Meier事件发生率,代表非致死性心肌梗死的复合终点,非致命性中风(缺血性或出血性),非致命性心力衰竭住院或心血管死亡。先前进行的研究的Cox模型结果用于估计基线风险,结合降血压治疗试验者合作(BPLTTC)荟萃分析和发表的关于降血压治疗疗效的证据,降低风险.在总人口中,在单药治疗持续100%的患者中,估计10年主要终点事件发生率厄贝沙坦(I)为17.0%,雷米普利(R)为17.6%.这些比率仅略高于临床实践中观察到的比率(17.8%)。在100%坚持双重治疗的患者中,厄贝沙坦+氨氯地平组合的估计事件发生率为13.6%(与未治疗相比,ARR=8.7%),雷米普利+氨氯地平的估计事件发生率为14.3%(与未治疗相比,ARR=8.0%).主要终点的绝对风险在ASCVD患者中降低15.9%,在无ASCVD患者中降低6.6%。同样,糖尿病患者的绝对风险降低了11.7%,无糖尿病患者的绝对风险降低了7.8%.
    结论:本研究首次对高血压患者进行了基于指南的治疗研究,并通过确保在临床实践中推荐的双重治疗,证明了大大降低风险的机会。特别是以具有高持久性的SPC形式,相对于没有治疗或单一疗法。
    OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend initiation of dual combination antihypertensive therapy, preferably single-pill combination (SPC), in most patients with hypertension. Evidence on narrowing gaps in clinical practice relative to guidelines is limited.
    RESULTS: Monte Carlo simulation was applied to 1.1 million patients qualifying for dual combination therapy from a previously conducted retrospective analysis of clinical practice, hospital statistics, and national statistics in the UK. We provide 10-year Kaplan-Meier event rates for the primary endpoint representing a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic), nonfatal heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death. Cox model results from a previously conducted study were utilized to estimate baseline risk, together with evidence on risk reduction from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists\' Collaboration (BPLTTC) meta-analysis and published evidence on BP-lowering efficacy of antihypertensive therapies. In the overall population, estimated 10-year event rates for the primary endpoint in patients with 100% persistence in monotherapy were 17.0% for irbesartan (I) and 17.6% for ramipril (R). These rates were only modestly better than that observed in clinical practice (17.8%). In patients with 100% persistence in dual therapy, estimated event rates were 13.6% for combinations of Irbesartan + Amlodipine (ARR = 8.7% compared to untreated) and 14.3% for Ramipril + Amlodipine (ARR = 8.0% compared to untreated). The absolute risk of the primary endpoint was reduced by 15.9% in patients with ASCVD and 6.6% in those without ASCVD. Similarly, the absolute risk was reduced by 11.7% in diabetics and 7.8% in those without diabetes.
    CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first to investigate guidelines-based treatment in hypertensive patients and demonstrates the opportunity for considerable risk reduction by ensuring recommended dual therapy in clinical practice, particularly in the form of SPC with high persistence, relative to no treatment or monotherapy.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    与美国耳鼻咽喉头颈外科学会(AAO-HNS)梅尼雷疾病(MD)临床实践指南(CPG)的“常见问题”(FAQ)的答案相比,评估聊天生成预培训变压器(ChatGPT)模型的响应质量。
    比较分析。
    用于MD的AAO-HNSCPG包括临床医生可以针对MD相关问题向患者提供的常见问题。ChatGPT正确教育患者有关MD的能力尚不清楚。
    ChatGPT-3.5和4.0均提示了来自MD常见问题的16个问题。每个反应都根据(1)全面性进行评级,(2)广泛性,(3)存在误导性信息,(4)资源质量。使用Flesch-Kincaid等级水平(FKGL)和Flesch阅读轻松评分(FRES)评估可读性。
    ChatGPT-3.5在5个反应中是全面的,而ChatGPT-4.0在9个反应中是全面的(31.3%vs56.3%,P=.2852)。ChatGPT-3.5和4.0在所有反应中均广泛存在(P=1.0000)。ChatGPT-3.5在5个反应中具有误导性,而ChatGPT-4.0在3个反应中具有误导性(31.3%vs18.75%,P=.6851)。ChatGPT-3.5在10个响应中具有质量资源,而ChatGPT-4.0在16个响应中具有质量资源(62.5%vs100%,P=.0177)。AAO-HNSCPGFRES(62.4±16.6)表现出至少60的适当可读性评分,而ChatGPT-3.5(39.1±7.3)和4.0(42.8±8.5)均未达到该标准。所有平台的FKGL均值都超过了6或更低的推荐水平。
    虽然ChatGPT-4.0具有明显更好的资源报告,这两种模式在更全面方面都有改进的空间,更具可读性,减少对患者的误导。
    UNASSIGNED: Evaluate the quality of responses from Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) models compared to the answers for \"Frequently Asked Questions\" (FAQs) from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for Ménière\'s disease (MD).
    UNASSIGNED: Comparative analysis.
    UNASSIGNED: The AAO-HNS CPG for MD includes FAQs that clinicians can give to patients for MD-related questions. The ability of ChatGPT to properly educate patients regarding MD is unknown.
    UNASSIGNED: ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 were each prompted with 16 questions from the MD FAQs. Each response was rated in terms of (1) comprehensiveness, (2) extensiveness, (3) presence of misleading information, and (4) quality of resources. Readability was assessed using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES).
    UNASSIGNED: ChatGPT-3.5 was comprehensive in 5 responses whereas ChatGPT-4.0 was comprehensive in 9 (31.3% vs 56.3%, P = .2852). ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 were extensive in all responses (P = 1.0000). ChatGPT-3.5 was misleading in 5 responses whereas ChatGPT-4.0 was misleading in 3 (31.3% vs 18.75%, P = .6851). ChatGPT-3.5 had quality resources in 10 responses whereas ChatGPT-4.0 had quality resources in 16 (62.5% vs 100%, P = .0177). AAO-HNS CPG FRES (62.4 ± 16.6) demonstrated an appropriate readability score of at least 60, while both ChatGPT-3.5 (39.1 ± 7.3) and 4.0 (42.8 ± 8.5) failed to meet this standard. All platforms had FKGL means that exceeded the recommended level of 6 or lower.
    UNASSIGNED: While ChatGPT-4.0 had significantly better resource reporting, both models have room for improvement in being more comprehensive, more readable, and less misleading for patients.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:急性感音神经性听力损失代表一系列以突发性听力损失为特征的病症。“急性感音神经性听力损失的诊断和管理临床实践指南”在日本作为第一个临床实践指南发布,概述了标准的诊断和治疗。本文的目的是通过增加科学证据来加强指南,包括对最新出版物的系统审查,并根据科学证据广泛介绍当前的治疗方案。
    方法:完成临床实践指南:1)回顾性数据分析(使用全国调查数据),2)系统的文献综述,和3)选定的临床问题(CQs)。对每种疾病进行了额外的系统评价,以加强指南中诊断和治疗的科学证据。
    结果:根据全国范围的调查结果和系统的文献综述总结,标准诊断流程图和治疗方案,包括CQ和建议,决心。
    结论:指南总结了诊断和治疗急性感觉神经性听力损失的标准方法。我们希望这些指南将用于医疗实践,并将启动进一步的研究。
    OBJECTIVE: Acute sensorineural hearing loss represents a spectrum of conditions characterized by sudden onset hearing loss. The \"Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Sensorineural Hearing Loss\" were issued as the first clinical practice guidelines in Japan outlining the standard diagnosis and treatment. The purpose of this article is to strengthen the guidelines by adding the scientific evidence including a systematic review of the latest publications, and to widely introduce the current treatment options based on the scientific evidence.
    METHODS: The clinical practice guidelines were completed by 1) retrospective data analysis (using nationwide survey data), 2) systematic literature review, and 3) selected clinical questions (CQs). Additional systematic review of each disease was performed to strengthen the scientific evidence of the diagnosis and treatment in the guidelines.
    RESULTS: Based on the nationwide survey results and the systematic literature review summary, the standard diagnosis flowchart and treatment options, including the CQs and recommendations, were determined.
    CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines present a summary of the standard approaches for the diagnosis and treatment of acute sensorineural hearing loss. We hope that these guidelines will be used in medical practice and that they will initiate further research.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Editorial
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    结核病(TB)仍然是新加坡的地方病。新加坡结核病管理临床实践指南于2016年首次发布。从那以后,结核病的临床管理取得了重大进展,从诊断到新药和治疗方案。国家结核病计划召集了一个多学科小组,以更新新加坡药物敏感结核病感染和疾病的临床管理指南,将当前证据与当地实践联系起来。
    遵循ADAPTE框架,小组系统审查了,对从2016年开始发布的英语国家和国际结核病临床指南进行评分和综合,根据临床决策的优先列表调整建议.对于与最新进展有关的问题,通过有针对性的检索方法进行了额外的主要文献综述.实施了两轮修改的Delphi流程,以就每项建议达成共识,在与外部利益相关者协商后进行最后一轮编辑。
    针对25个临床问题的建议,跨越筛查,诊断,药物方案的选择,制定了结核病感染和疾病的监测和随访。最近的临床试验结果的可用性导致纳入了针对结核病感染和疾病的较短治疗方案,以及关于新技术作用的共识立场,例如用于结核病放射筛查的计算机辅助检测人工智能产品,用于药物敏感性测试的下一代测序,和治疗的视频观察。
    小组更新了新加坡对药物敏感的结核病感染和疾病的管理建议。
    UNASSIGNED: Tuberculosis (TB) remains endemic in Singapore. Singapore\'s clinical practice guidelines for the management of tuberculosis were first published in 2016. Since then, there have been major new advances in the clinical management of TB, ranging from diagnostics to new drugs and treatment regimens. The National TB Programme convened a multidisciplinary panel to update guidelines for the clinical management of drug-susceptible TB infection and disease in Singapore, contextualising current evidence for local practice.
    UNASSIGNED: Following the ADAPTE framework, the panel systematically reviewed, scored and synthesised English-language national and international TB clinical guidelines published from 2016, adapting recommendations for a prioritised list of clinical decisions. For questions related to more recent advances, an additional primary literature review was conducted via a targeted search approach. A 2-round modified Delphi process was implemented to achieve consensus for each recommendation, with a final round of edits after consultation with external stakeholders.
    UNASSIGNED: Recommendations for 25 clinical questions spanning screening, diagnosis, selection of drug regimen, monitoring and follow-up of TB infection and disease were formulated. The availability of results from recent clinical trials led to the inclusion of shorter treatment regimens for TB infection and disease, as well as consensus positions on the role of newer technologies, such as computer-aided detection-artificial intelligence products for radiological screening of TB disease, next-generation sequencing for drug-susceptibility testing, and video observation of treatment.
    UNASSIGNED: The panel updated recommendations on the management of drug-susceptible TB infection and disease in Singapore.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:临床实践指南(CPG)为医疗保健决策提供信息并改善患者护理。然而,缺乏对胃肠道疾病(GID)指南的评估.本研究旨在系统分析支持GID的中国CPG的证据水平(LOE)。
    方法:通过系统地搜索主要数据库来鉴定GID的CPG。提取了LOE和建议类别(COR)的数据。根据推荐等级,评估,发展,和评估系统,LOE被归类为高,中度,低,或者非常低,而CORs分为强或弱。进行了统计分析,以确定LOE和COR在不同子主题中的分布,并评估证据质量随时间的变化。
    结果:只有27.9%的建议得到了高LOE的支持,而大约70%是强烈推荐。在高LOE支持的强有力建议的比例上,不同的子主题之间存在显着差异。在过去的5年中,准则的数量有所增加,但高LOE支持的建议比例也随之下降.
    结论:目前普遍缺乏支持中国CPG治疗GID的高质量证据,强有力的建议存在不一致,但没有得到改善。这项研究确定了需要进一步研究的领域,强调需要弥合这些差距,并促进开展高质量的临床试验。
    背景:本研究得到了中国国家重点研发计划(2022YFC2503604和2022YFC2503605)和军事卫生保健专题(22BJZ25)的支持。
    BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) inform healthcare decisions and improve patient care. However, an evaluation of guidelines on gastrointestinal diseases (GIDs) is lacking. This study aimed to systematically analyze the level of evidence (LOE) supporting Chinese CPGs for GIDs.
    METHODS: CPGs for GIDs were identified by systematically searching major databases. Data on LOEs and classes of recommendations (CORs) were extracted. According to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, LOEs were categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low, whereas CORs were classified as strong or weak. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine the distribution of LOEs and CORs across different subtopics and assess changes in evidence quality over time.
    RESULTS: Only 27.9% of these recommendations were supported by a high LOE, whereas approximately 70% were strong recommendations. There was a significant disparity among different subtopics in the proportion of strong recommendations supported by a high LOE. The number of guidelines has increased in the past 5 years, but there has been a concomitant decline in the proportion of recommendations supported by a high LOE.
    CONCLUSIONS: There is a general lack of high-quality evidence supporting Chinese CPGs for GIDs, and there are inconsistencies in strong recommendations that have not improved. This study identified areas requiring further research, emphasizing the need to bridge these gaps and promote the conduct of high-quality clinical trials.
    BACKGROUND: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFC2503604 and 2022YFC2503605) and Special Topics in Military Health Care (22BJZ25).
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    UNASSIGNED: Updating recommendations for guidelines requires a comprehensive and efficient literature search. Although new information platforms are available for developing groups, their relative contributions to this purpose remain uncertain.
    UNASSIGNED: As part of a review/update of eight selected evidence-based recommendationsfor type 2 diabetes, we evaluated the following five literature search approaches (targeting systematic reviews, using predetermined criteria): PubMed for MEDLINE, Epistemonikos database basic search, Epistemonikos database using a structured search strategy, Living overview of evidence (L.OVE) platform, and TRIP database. Three reviewers independently classified the retrieved references as definitely eligible, probably eligible, or not eligible. Those falling in the same \"definitely\" categories for all reviewers were labelled as \"true\" positives/negatives. The rest went to re-assessment and if found eligible/not eligible by consensus became \"false\" negatives/positives, respectively. We described the yield for each approach and computed \"diagnostic accuracy\" measures and agreement statistics.
    UNASSIGNED: Altogether, the five approaches identified 318 to 505 references for the eight recommendations, from which reviewers considered 4.2 to 9.4% eligible after the two rounds. While Pubmed outperformed the other approaches (diagnostic odds ratio 12.5 versus 2.6 to 5.3), no single search approach returned eligible references for all recommendations. Individually, searches found up to 40% of all eligible references (n = 71), and no combination of any three approaches could find over 80% of them. Kappa statistics for retrieval between searches were very poor (9 out of 10 paired comparisons did not surpass the chance-expected agreement).
    UNASSIGNED: Among the information platforms assessed, PubMed appeared to be more efficient in updating this set of recommendations. However, the very poor agreement among search approaches in the reference yield demands that developing groups add information from several (probably more than three) sources for this purpose. Further research is needed to replicate our findings and enhance our understanding of how to efficiently update recommendations.
    UNASSIGNED: La actualización de recomendaciones de las guías de práctica clínica requiere búsquedas bibliográficas exhaustivas y eficientes. Aunque están disponibles nuevas plataformas de información para grupos desarrolladores, su contribución a este propósito sigue siendo incierta.
    UNASSIGNED: Como parte de una revisión/actualización de 8 recomendaciones basadas en evidencia seleccionadas sobre diabetes tipo 2, evaluamos las siguientes cinco aproximaciones de búsqueda bibliográfica (dirigidas a revisiones sistemáticas, utilizando criterios predeterminados): PubMed para MEDLINE; Epistemonikos utilizando una búsqueda básica; Epistemonikos utilizando una estrategia de búsqueda estructurada; plataforma (L.OVE) y TRIP . Tres revisores clasificaron de forma independiente las referencias recuperadas como definitivamente o probablemente elegibles/no elegibles. Aquellas clasificadas en las mismas categorías \"definitivas\" para todos los revisores, se etiquetaron como \"verdaderas\" positivas/negativas. El resto se sometieron a una nueva evaluación y, si se consideraban por consenso elegibles/no elegibles, se convirtieron en \"falsos\" negativos/positivos, respectivamente. Describimos el rendimiento de cada aproximación, junto a sus medidas de \"precisión diagnóstica\" y las estadísticas de acuerdo.
    UNASSIGNED: En conjunto, las cinco aproximaciones identificaron 318-505 referencias para las 8 recomendaciones, de las cuales los revisores consideraron elegibles el 4,2 a 9,4% tras las dos rondas. Mientras que Pubmed superó a las otras aproximaciones (odds ratio de diagnóstico 12,5 versus 2,6 a 53), ninguna aproximación de búsqueda identificó por sí misma referencias elegibles para todas las recomendaciones. Individualmente, las búsquedas identificaron hasta el 40% de todas las referencias elegibles (n=71), y ninguna combinación de cualquiera de los tres enfoques pudo identificar más del 80% de ellas. Las estadísticas Kappa para la recuperación entre búsquedas fueron muy pobres (9 de cada 10 comparaciones pareadas no superaron el acuerdo esperado por azar).
    UNASSIGNED: Entre las plataformas de información evaluadas, Pubmed parece ser la más eficiente para actualizar este conjunto de recomendaciones. Sin embargo, la escasa concordancia en el rendimiento de las referencias exige que los grupos desarrolladores incorporen información de varias fuentes (probablemente más de tres) para este fin. Es necesario seguir investigando para replicar nuestros hallazgos y mejorar nuestra comprensión de cómo actualizar recomendaciones de forma eficiente.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    概述:该方案概述了旨在系统地审查临床实践指南(CPG)的过程,解决二胎羊膜双胎(DCDA)双胎妊娠的产前管理。背景:CPG是包括旨在优化患者护理的建议的声明,这是通过对证据的系统审查以及对替代治疗方案的益处和危害的评估而得出的。CPG通常由科研机构创建,组织和专业协会,高质量的CPG是改善患者预后的基础,规范临床实践,提高护理质量。虽然CPG旨在提高护理质量,为了实现这一点,需要识别和评估当前的国际CPG。因为双胎妊娠被认定为高危妊娠,对这一领域的CPG进行系统评价是建立所需高水平护理的有益的第一步.目的:系统审查的目的是确定,评估和检查已发表的关于DCDA双胎妊娠产前管理的CPG,在高收入国家。方法:我们将确定已发表的CPG,以解决DCDA双胎妊娠产前护理管理的任何方面,使用《研究和评估指南评估》第2版(AGREEII)《评估指南研究和评估-卓越建议》(AGREE-REX)工具评估已确定的CPG的质量,并检查已确定的CPG的建议。最终,该协议旨在明确定义在高收入国家/地区对CPG进行可重复的系统审查的过程,解决DCDA双胎妊娠产前管理的任何方面。PROSPERO注册:CRD420212488586(2021年6月24日)。
    Overview: The protocol outlines the process designed to systematically review clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), addressing the antenatal management of dichorionic diamniotic (DCDA) twin pregnancies. Background: CPGs are statements that include recommendations intended to optimise patient care, that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options. CPGs are typically created by scientific institutes, organisations and professional societies, and high-quality CPGs are fundamental to improve patient outcomes, standardise clinical practice and improve the quality of care. While CPGs are designed to improve the quality of care, to achieve this, the identification and appraisal of current international CPGs is required. Because twin pregnancies are identified as high-risk pregnancies, a systematic review of the CPGs in this field is a useful first step for establishing the required high level of care. Aim: The aim of the systematic review is to identify, appraise and examine published CPGs for the antenatal management of DCDA twin pregnancies, within high-income countries. Methods: We will identify published CPGs addressing any aspect of antenatal management of care in DCDA twin pregnancies, appraise the quality of the identified CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation version 2 (AGREE II) the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation - Recommendations excellence (AGREE-REX) instruments and examining the recommendations from the identified CPGs. Ultimately, this protocol aspires to clearly define the process for a reproducible systematic review of CPGs within a high-income country, addressing any aspect of antenatal management of DCDA twin pregnancies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021248586 (24/06/2021).
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    Currently, there is no international standard for the methodology of patient versions of guideline development. In China, the development of patient versions of guidelines is still in its infancy, and there are no registered or published patient versions of guidelines in the field of acupuncture. This paper introduces two methods of developing patient versions of guidelines: directly converting clinical practice guidelines into patient versions guidelines and developing patient versions of guidelines independently. The relationship and differences between patient guidelines and clinical practice versions of guidelines are compared. By integrating the unique characteristics of acupuncture, this paper analyzes and discusses the significance, problems, and challenges of developing patient versions of guidelines in the field of acupuncture, aiming to provide methodological references for the future development of acupuncture patient versions of guidelines.
    患者指南的制定方法目前国际上尚无统一的标准。我国患者指南的制定尚处于起步阶段,针灸领域亦无患者指南注册和发布。本文介绍了由临床实践指南直接转化的患者指南以及单独制定的患者指南两种制定方法,比较患者指南和临床实践指南的联系与区别。并结合针灸学自身特点,分析针灸领域制定患者指南的意义及其面临的问题与挑战,以期为未来针灸患者指南的制定提供方法学参考。.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号