1 / 17

EBM --- Journal Reading

EBM --- Journal Reading. Presenter: 林禹君 Date:2005/10/26. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature Ⅱ. How to Use an Article About Therapy or Prevention B. What Were the Results and Will They Help Me in Caring for My Patients?.

terranceb
Télécharger la présentation

EBM --- Journal Reading

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. EBM --- Journal Reading Presenter:林禹君 Date:2005/10/26

  2. Users’ Guides to the Medical LiteratureⅡ. How to Use an Article About Therapy or PreventionB. What Were the Results and Will They Help Me in Caring for My Patients? Gordon H. Guyatt, MD. MSc; David L. Sackett, MD. MSc; Deborah J. Cook, MD. MSc; for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group

  3. Clinical scenario • 65 y/o male • Brief history • Controlled HTN • 6 months arterial fibrillation, resistant to cardioversion • No evidence for valvular or coronary heart disease • long-term anticoagulants: • Benefit (reduce embolic stroke) v.s risk (hemorrhage)

  4. The PICO • P: non valvular arterial fibrillation • I: warfarin • C: warfarin and control treatment • O: risk of embolism and complications of anticoagulation

  5. The Search • GRATEFUL MED • MeSH: • Arterial fibrillation, warfarin, Stroke(explode cerebrovascular disorders • Limit • English language, randomized controlled trial • 9 articles • 3: editorials, commentaries • 1: prognosis • 1: quality of life • The most recent of the 4 • Warfarin in the prevention of stroke associated with nonrheumatic arterial fibrillation, NEJM. 1992

  6. What were the results? How large was the treatment effect? How precise was the estimate of the treatment effect?

  7. What were the results ? • How large was the treatment effect? • Absolute risk reduction • Relative risk • Relative risk reduction(RRR) • How precise was the estimate of treatment effect? • Point estimate • 95% confidence interval: true 95% of the time

  8. When is the sample size big enough? • The larger the sample size, the greater of our confidence • Positive study  lower boundary of the CI, still clinically significant? • Negative study  upper boundary of the CI, be important • Other criteria for CI

  9. What can the clinician do if the CI around the RRR is not reported in the article • P-value • 0.05: lower bound of 95% CI for RRR= 0 • Cannot exclude treatment had no effect • <0.05: lower bound of 95% CI >0 • +/- standard error*2 • Calculate CI yourself or someone else

  10. Will the results help me in caring for my patients? Can the results be applied to my patient care? Were all clinically important outcomes considered? Are the likely treatment benefits worth the potential harms and costs ?

  11. Will the results help me in caring for my patients ? • Can the results be applied to my patient care? • Inclusion/exclusion criteria • Whether there is some compelling reason why the results should “not” be applied to the p’t • Believable subgroup data: if difference is • Large • Very unlikely to occur by chance • Results from analysis specified as a hypothesis before the study began • One of only a very few subgroup analyses that were carried out • Replicated in other studies

  12. Were all clinically important outcomes considered? • Treatment improve outcomes that are “important” to patients • Substituted end point v.s important outcome • Antiarrhythmic agent: abnormal ventricular depolarization v.s life-threatening arrhythmia • No deleterious effects on other outcomes • Surgical trial immediate and early mortality

  13. Are the likely treatment benefits worth the potential harm and costs? • Number needed to treat (NNT) before deciding on treatment, we must consider our patient’s risk of the adverse event if left untreated

  14. Resolution of the scenario (0.26-0.45)

  15. Conclusion • Define the problem clearly • Search: best available evidence • Assess the quality of evidence • Result • Important Outcome • Benefit/risk/cost

  16. Thanks For Your Attention !!

More Related