Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5537_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
22 Мб
Скачать
Discussion
The CURE trial meets all of the validity criteria, so is worth attending to the results. The ARR with clopidogrel added to ASA versus placebo, was
2.1% using the composite outcome, at a mean follow-up of nine months. The relative risk reduction was 20%.
6
Overall, approximately 50 people need to be treated to avoid one outcome of CV death, non-fatal MI or stroke, as compared with one major bleed caused for every 100 people treated with this combination antiplatelet regimen.
Going back to our patient, Mrs. Geller fits well the inclusion criteria of the CURE trial, has no increased bleeding risk, and is not going imme­diately for cardiac catheterization. You therefore order 300 mg of clopi­dogrel loading dose followed by 75 mg daily.

Economics

Health economics analyses inform policy-makers and clinicians by explic­itly measuring and comparing the health outcomes value and costs associ­ated with healthcare strategies. Health economics is essential to determining the most equitable access to shared healthcare resources by optimizing health outcomes per money spent. Individuals who pay for their own healthcare are usually even more concerned about economics, as an expensive test or treatment may mean difficult choices involving their budget for housing, education, etc.
Clinical Scenario
Mr. Singh, a 54-year-old gentleman with hypertension, dyslipidemia, obe­sity (BMI = 38.4) and new onset diabetes mellitus type II, presents to your office. He has been diligently attempting to lose weight for two years with little to no success. You consider whether to enroll him in a multi-disci­plinary weight loss program or refer him for bariatric surgery. You know that bariatric surgery is very expensive but you have heard that it is also very effective in helping patients lose weight and maintain weight loss.
24
S. Kharkhanechi et al.
Economics Study
A recent economic analysis carried out as part of a randomized trial was performed on 60 subjects comparing outcomes and costs at two years of laparoscopic adjustable gastric band plus conventional therapy with con­ventional therapy alone.
9
Economics Criteria
25
Evidence-based Medicine Primer
Table 4. Criteria for Evaluating a Study on Health Economics
10
a) Are the results valid (worth reading)?
Was the perspective of all relevant parties Data on costs and outcomes should include included? all of the relevant groups impacted —
including the patient, provider, institution, healthcare plan, and society-at-large.
Were both costs and outcomes considered? Full economic analysis requires patient-
important outcomes in addition to resource utilization.
Were all relevant clinical strategies The strategies of interest should be compared? compared to the relevant current standard
therapy.
Was clinical effectiveness established? No intervention or strategy will be cost-
effective if it is not effective. Economic analyses generated within randomized controlled trials benefit from high internal validity but need to be scrutinized to see if the results are generalizable to usual clinical practice.
Were costs measured accurately? Costs often differ from charges; costs and
charges may vary dramatically across jurisdictions. Likewise, idiosyncrasies in clinical practice across jurisdictions for the same condition can generate resource utilization different from that measured in the study.
(Continued )
https://avxhm.se/blogs/hill0
Discussion
Bariatric surgery is clinically effective in causing remission of diabetes mellitus
11
but its cost-effectiveness has been unclear. A 2009 study tackled this question by investigating the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic gas­tric band surgery for patients with Type 2 diabetes who had failed lifestyle
26
S. Kharkhanechi et al.
Table 4. (Continued )
Was appropriate allowance made for Given that costs are often more uncertain uncertainties in the analysis? than effectiveness, sensitivity analyses are
very important in economic analyses to ensure that the range in possible cost­effectiveness is captured.
b) What are the results?
What were the incremental costs and Costs should include all materials and outcomes of each strategy? healthcare work hours. Outcomes are
usually summarized as cost per life year saved or cost per quality-adjusted life year gained (QALYs).
Do the incremental costs and outcomes As for any study, subgroup analyses should differ between subgroups? be minimized, be specified a priori and be
considered as hypothesis-generating.
How much does allowance for uncertainty Sensitivity analyses which reveal a wide change the results? range of cost-effectiveness will reduce
confidence in the results.
c) How can I apply the results to patient care?
Are the treatment benefits worth the harms When a treatment is both more effective and costs? and more expensive, incremental cost-
effectiveness estimates and range of sensitivity analyses are key to informing decisions regarding adoption.
Could we expect similar outcomes and Generalizability of outcomes is assessed as costs with our patients? described in the “Therapy” section. Costs
may differ depending on the local price of materials and clinical practice patterns.
management. A healthcare sector viewpoint was used.9 Effectiveness was based on results of a two-year randomized trial, so it is likely that testing and follow-up was more intensive (and therefore more costly) than would occur in usual practice. Uncertainty in costs was accounted for with appropriate modeling but the study is based on only 60 patients, thus rais­ing concerns about the adequacy of the cost-effectiveness estimates. Surgical therapy resulted in remission of diabetes more frequently than conventional therapy alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $12,300 per case of diabetes remitted. Expressing the outcome in terms of diabetes remitted, while a relevant clinical outcome, is less help­ful than the more global patient-important outcome of quality-adjusted life year gained.
Going back to the case, Mr. Singh is similar to those in the study, so the treating physician might expect a similar clinical outcome. Costs, however, would likely not be similar as the study was performed in Australia, where healthcare costs are generally lower than in the United States or Canada. In addition, quality of life was not measured. Overall, although this cost-effectiveness ratio is attractive, you are unsure of its generalizability to your patient. After discussion with Mr. Singh, you decide to investigate the extent of his insurance coverage for this proce­dure and meet again to discuss. You also ask Mr. Singh to read the “plain language” summary of the Cochrane systematic review,
11
which is meant
to provide patients with the key results.

References

1. Bates SM, Grand’Maison A, Johnston M, et al. (2001) A latex D­dimer reliably excludes venous thromboembolism. Arch Intern Med 161(3): 447–453.
2. Richardson WS, Wilson MC. (2008) The process of diagnosis — Chapter 14. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ (eds),
User’s Guide to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 2nd ed. American Medical Association, New York,
pp. 399–406.
27
Evidence-based Medicine Primer
https://avxhm.se/blogs/hill0
3. Richardson WS, Wilson MC, McGinn TG. (2008) Differential diag­nosis — Chapter 15. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ, (eds) User’s Guide to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence- Based Clinical Practice, 2nd ed. American Medical Association, New York, pp. 407–417.
4. Bates SM, Kearon C, Crowther M, et al. (2003) A diagnostic strategy involving a quantitative latex D-Dimer assay reliably excludes deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med 138: 787–794.
5. Chandratheva A, Geraghty O, Luengo-Fernandez R, et al. (2010) ABCD2 score predicts severity rather than risk of early recurrent events after transient ischemic attack. Stroke 41(5): 851–856.
6. Randolph A, Cook DJ and Guyatt G. (2008) Prognosis — Chapter 18. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ, (eds), Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 2nd ed. American Medical Association, New York, pp. 509–520.
7. CURE Study Investigators. (2001) Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med 345: 494–502.
8. Guyatt G, Straus S, Meade MO, et al. (2008) Therapy (randomized trials) Chapter 6. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ, (eds).
User’s Guide to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence­Based Clinical Practice, 2nd ed. American Medical Association, New
York, pp. 67–86.
9. Keating CL, Dixon JB, Moodie ML, et al. (2009) Cost-efficacy of surgically induced weight loss for the management of type 2 diabetes: A randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 32(4): 580–584.
10. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. (2005) Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
11. Colquitt JL, Picot J, Loveman E, Clegg AJ. (2009) Surgery for obesity. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 2.
28
S. Kharkhanechi et al.
On the Fly: Using Electronic Resources to Enhance Evidence-based Practice
Deborah R. Korenstein* and Laura Schimming*

Key Pearls

Asking frequent questions is the key to evidence-based practice.
Hospitalists can use pre-appraised electronic resources to quickly find
evidence-based answers to clinical questions.
For general questions about disease pathophysiology and treatment (“background questions”), topic summaries are most helpful.
For specific questions about particular treatments or diagnostic tests (“foreground questions”), systematic reviews or summaries of systematic reviews are often most helpful.
Practitioners should try various resources to find the most helpful ones.

Introduction

The rise of hospital medicine as an independent discipline over the last decade has coincided with an explosion in Internet-based electronic resources. At the same time, the nature of hospital stays has evolved so that patients are sicker, length of stay is shorter and physicians are busier with admitting and discharging responsibilities.
1,2
Hospitalists are under pressure to provide high quality evidence-based care but there are many challenges to this task, including an exponential rise in the volume of
29
3
Chapter
*Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
https://avxhm.se/blogs/hill0
medical literature, time, and lack of expertise in evidence-based medicine (EBM).
3
The purpose of this chapter is to help hospitalists access and master the information resource tools they need to become efficient real­time practitioners of EBM, particularly pre-appraised resources, and to provide a summary of useful resources.
In recent years, experts in EBM have shifted their emphasis from the critical appraisal of individual studies to the mastery of pre-appraised resources.
4
Pre-appraised resources are produced by evidence experts and are designed to be easily utilized by clinicians. The best pre-appraised resources are current, undergoing nearly constant updating, “filtered” in that they select for the best available evidence related to the issue at hand, and processed so that the evidence is presented in a manner which is helpful to a busy clinician. Incorporating pre-appraised resources into practice can help hospitalists and others become master evidence-based practitioners.
A New Paradigm: The Evidence Hierarchy
The new paradigm for practicing EBM incorporates a hierarchy of evi­dence. In the model posed by Haynes and others,
4
these resources form a pyramid with increasing levels of information filtering. Individual studies form the base of the pyramid, followed by study summaries, systematic reviews, summaries of systematic reviews, evidence-based topic reviews (such as review articles or textbook chapters) and finally, computerized decision support systems at the top. Different types of questions are best answered by resources at different points on the pyramid.
There are many widely available electronic resources which can be utilized in real time to facilitate patient care, though their reliability and usefulness vary. In general, when evaluating a new resource, clinicians should look for ratings of evidence quality, sometimes presented as levels of evidence in support of each statement or recommendation. Resources which provide consistent evidence ratings for all clinical recommenda­tions are generally more reliable than those without, since they are transparent about the basis of each statement. When searching resources which are higher in the pyramid, such as a summary of systematic reviews
30
D. R. Korenstein and L. Schimming
on a topic, it is better to use fewer and simpler terms and then navigate within the site until an answer is found. These databases tend to be smaller, so complex searches may miss relevant entries, and they often have well-designed internal navigation tools. When searching near the base of the pyramid, such as Medline, which is a very large database, it is best to use more specific search terms. Table 1 summarizes a number of useful resources, including many pre-appraised resources, and indicates the type of information contained, the presence of consistent quality rat­ings, the Internet address and other details about access and usability. Many of these resources require subscriptions, which are often held by medical libraries.
Becoming an Evidence-based Practitioner
To become an evidence based practitioner and utilize the evidence hier­archy, clinicians should begin by asking questions, since good questions prompt searches for high quality answers. In general, clinicians should ask questions of themselves, questioning even common practice and of consultants, demanding evidence in support of recommendations. They can then begin looking for answers at the highest possible point on the evidence pyramid and move down if no evidence is found. The starting point to answer a given question depends upon the nature of the question. For Background questions, which relate to basic information about a topic, it is best to go first to evidence-based topic summaries. An exam­ple of a background question is “How is thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) treated?” Foreground questions are specific, concerning, for example, the impact of a certain treatment on a particular outcome in a specific patient population. Answers to foreground questions might be found in topic summaries if they relate to an issue which has been addressed by many studies, but if the issue is less well studied it might be better to start with systematic reviews or summaries of individual studies. An example of a foreground question is, “In young women with TTP, does plasma exchange improve mortality as compared with treat­ment with steroids?”
31
On the Fly: Using Electronic Resources to Enhance Evidence-based Practice
https://avxhm.se/blogs/hill0
p
32
D. R. Korenstein and L. Schimming
Table 1. EBM Resources
Ease Frequency Clinical Summaries of Single
of of Quality Topic Systematic Systematic Study Individual
Resource Use Updates1Ratings Summaries Reviews Reviews Summaries Studies Comments
ACP Journal Club Monthly None Browse by issue or
search using
http://www.acpjc.org keywords. Limit by
article type. Search engine will expand search with synonyms from a custom thesaurus.
Clinical Evidence Daily Systematic Browse alphabetically
or by section.
http://clinical-evidence. Search using
bmj.com keywords. Use
horizontal menu at top of page to select each topic section. Outline format.
(Continued)
1
Based on claims from each website.
p
33
On the Fly: Using Electronic Resources to Enhance Evidence-based Practice
Table 1. (Continued )
Ease Frequency Clinical Summaries of Single
of of Quality Topic Systematic Systematic Study Individual
Resource Use Updates1Ratings Summaries Reviews Reviews Summaries Studies Comments
Cochrane Database Monthly None  Somewhat easy
of Systematic to use. Browse Reviews (CDSR) for topics using
several criteria. http://www. Advanced search thecochranelibrary.com page allows
Medical Subject
Heading (MeSH)
searching and
full-text searching.
Cochrane Database Monthly None  Select DARE from
of Abstracts of under “Browse Reviews of Other Resources” Effects (DARE) on the Cochrane
Library home page. http://www. Or, do a keyword thecochranelibrary.com search and select
“Other Reviews”
from the top of the
results page to limit
to DARE reviews.
(Continued)
https://avxhm.se/blogs/hill0