医疗诉讼中医患双方的举证范围和取证方式

最高人民法院于2002年4月1日起正式实施的《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》(简称《规定》)中第四条第八款明确规定:“因医疗行为引起的侵权诉讼,由医疗机构就医疗行为与损害后果之间不存在因果关系及不存在医疗过错承担举证责任[1]。”这就是人们通常所称谓的“举证责任倒置”。在医疗纠纷处理实践中,“举证责任倒置”给患者的诉讼带来有利的条件,但并不是所有举证责任都由医方来举证,医患双方都应有举证的责任和权利。1患方的举证范围和取证方式1·1患方的举证范围在医疗纠纷诉讼中,如果医方已尽到自己的职责,是能够通过正确行…     

糖尿病患者外周血管病变的内科治疗证据

目的：评价糖尿病外周血管病变的几种内科治疗手段的疗效。方法：检索MEDLINE和Cochrane Database,以内科治疗糖尿病和非糖尿病的外周血管病变的Meta分析为基础,加以综述。结果：检索到13项结果,共评估了西洛他唑,己酮可可碱,抗血小板药物,运动疗法,以及控制危险因素(吸烟,高血脂和高血压等)对治疗伴或不伴糖尿病的外周血管病变的有效性。结论：西洛他唑能有效治疗糖尿病及非糖尿病患者的间歇性跛行,阿司匹林可能对糖尿病患者的血管病变有一级预防作用,己酮可可碱和运动治疗可增加间歇性跛行患者的行走能力,控制危险因素(降血糖,降血脂,降血压和戒烟)对糖尿病患者外周血管病变的影响有待进一步研究。     

Medical Marijuana: A Primer on Ethics,Evidence, and Politics

Controversy in the United States about the decriminalization of cannabis to allow health care providers to recommend it for therapeutic use (medical marijuana) has been based on varying policies and beliefs about cannabis rather than on scientific evidence. Issues include the duty to provide care, conflicting reports of the therapeutic advantages and risks of cannabis, inconsistent laws, and even the struggle to remove barriers to the scope of practice for advanced practice registered nurses. This article reviews the ethics, evidence, and politics of this complex debate.     

《临床证据》入选意大利国家继续医学教育项目

尽管循证医学(EBM)对卫生政策和临床实践的影响尚未确定,但在意大利,人们对循证医学的兴趣却与日俱增。意大利医生的信息需求很大程度上仍依赖于药厂,而非无偏倚的循证资源。例如,近期一项调查显示:全科医生每周会接受11次医药代表的来访[1]。该调查表明医生认为药厂提供的信息完整且可靠性较高。     

医学研究中证据分级和推荐强度的演进

本文系统分析了1979-2007年间50个主要组织和机构的证据分级标准及推荐意见强度，遴选出最具代表性的5个国家和国际组织的11个标准，并从分级特点、影响范围、使用领域等角度将其分为三个发展阶段。目前医学领域的标准已趋于成熟，并逐步统一。未来的挑战是在管理、教育、基础研究、经济学、社会学、法学等非医非药领域引入证据分类分级理念，研究制定符合循证医学思想，满足各领域研究和实践需要的高质量证据分类分级标准和推荐意见强度，接受时间和实践的检验。     

研究型教学方法的探索:医学本科生参与循证医学研究实践

目的探索如何开展医学本科生的循证医学暑假教学,帮助学生完成循证医学研究.方法招募医学本科学生志愿者,利用暑假对其进行Cochrane系统评价的研究方法和相关知识的阶段性教学,并根据学生的学习进度和技能掌握程度,结合学生意愿,组织部分学生参加国际合作医学临床研究最佳证据研究的学习与实践.结果自开展此项培训项目3年以来,先后有38名医学本科生和七年制硕士生参加了Cochrane系统评价研究的培训,已发表Cochrane系统评价5篇,其中3篇是学生作为课题负责人,2篇是学生作为主研人员;以第1作者发表系统评价研究计划书19个;在国内核心期刊以第1作者发表论著7篇,SCI收录论文1篇,11人次被资助参加高水平国际学术会议.结论医学生参加系统评价的研究,有利于他们深入了解循证医学、学习临床科研的方法、提高科研能力和协作精神、加快成为科研型人材;医学生适合于参与系统评价研究,这对培养他们去深入学习和掌握相关临床知识和解决实际问题的能力也大有裨益.     

Health Care Professionals' Reactions to Patient Pain: Impact of Knowledge About Medical Evidence and Psychosocial Influences

This study examined the impact of evidence concerning the presence of 1) a biomedical basis for pain and 2) psychosocial influences on practitioner appraisals of patient pain experiences. Furthermore, the potential moderating role of patient pain behavior was examined. In an online study, 52 general practitioners and 46 physiotherapists viewed video sequences of 4 patients manifesting pain, with accompanying vignettes describing presence or absence of medical evidence and psychosocial influences. Participants estimated pain intensity, daily interference, sympathy felt, effectiveness of pain medication, self-efficacy, their likability, and suspicions of deception. Primary findings indicated lower perceived pain and daily interference, less sympathy, lower expectations of medication impact, and less self-efficacy when medical evidence was absent. The same results were found when psychosocial influences were present, but only when the patient displayed higher levels of pain behavior. Furthermore, absence of medical evidence was related to less positive evaluations of the patients and to higher beliefs in deception in both professions. The presence of psychosocial influences was related to less positive evaluations and higher beliefs in deception in both professions. In sum, a range of contextual factors influence health care practitioner responses to patient pain. Implications for caregiving behavior are discussed.PerspectiveThe present study indicates that in the absence of clear medical evidence and in the presence of psychosocial influences, patient pain might be taken less seriously by health care practitioners. These findings are important to further understand the difficulties that relate to the clinical encounter between pain patients and health care practitioners.     

循证医学实践与干部医疗保健工作

循证医学实践在临床工作中已取得一定经验，采用循证医学的原理和方法指导干部和老年人群的医疗保健工作是一项全新的课题。不仅对临床医生认识疾病诊治和判断疗效及预后，建立客观合理的健康保健计划具有指导意义。对保健对象获取科学先进的预防保健知识，认知疾病治疗目标和预后，避免不合理和不必要的医疗负荷具有重要意义。同时对卫生行政部门的医疗保健决策也有一定的参考意义。     

坦索罗辛用于输尿管结石排石治疗随机对照试验的Meta分析

目的系统评价α1肾上腺素受体阻滞剂坦索罗辛治疗输尿管结石的疗效。方法计算机检索PubMed、EMbase、BIOSIS和International Pharmaceutical Abstracts(IPA)数据库,Cochrane图书馆(2006年第3期),中国期刊全文数据库(1995.1～2006.9)及重要学术会议论文集,系统收集坦索罗辛治疗输尿管结石的随机对照试验。由2名评价者共同评价纳入研究质量并提取资料,合并同质研究进行Meta分析,采用STATA9.0完成定量资料分析。结果共纳入16个随机对照试验,包括1521例输尿管下段结石患者。Meta分析结果显示:①坦索罗辛组比仅使用饮水和镇痛药的保守疗法结石排出率高[RR1.50,95%CI(1.20,1.87)],缩短排石时间[SMD–1.29,95%CI(–2.27,–0.31)],并降低后期ESWL或输尿管镜治疗率[RR0.40,95%CI(0.27,0.59)],差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。②坦索罗辛/地夫可特联用组比保守疗法排石率高[RR1.59,95%CI(1.31,1.93)],缩短排石时间[SMD–0.8,95%CI(–1.18,–0.42)],明显减少后期ESWL或输尿管镜治疗率[RR0.13,95%CI(0.06,0.31)],差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。③坦索罗辛与地夫可特联用组与单用地夫可特组在结石排出率方面没有差异[RR1.31,95%CI(0.78,2.23),P=0.31],但能明显减少镇痛药剂量[SMD15.20,95%CI(14.98,15.52)]和后期输尿管镜治疗率[RR0.09,95%CI(0.02,0.47)],差异有统计学意义。④坦索罗辛与地夫可特联用组比硝苯地平与地夫可特联用组结石排出率高[RR1.20,95%CI(1.07,1.35),P=0.002],而排石时间[SMD–1.34,95%CI(–3.47,0.79)]和后期ESWL或输尿管镜治疗率[RR0.34,95%CI(0.05,2.22)]无差异(P>0.05)。⑤以坦索罗辛为主的干预组和保守疗法在药物副作用方面没有差异(P均>0.05)。结论目前的证据支持:坦索罗辛对输尿管下段和膀胱壁间段结石具有较高的促排石率,能缩短排石时间和降低后期侵入性治疗率。0.4mg/d坦索罗辛对下段输尿管结石治疗安全有效。有限证据支持坦索罗辛与地夫可特联用有助于提高排石率,但需要大样本的研究结果予以支持。     

Trainees' Perceptions of Feedback: Validity Evidence for Two FEEDME (Feedback in Medical Education) Instruments

Construct: Medical educators consider feedback a core component of the educational process. Effective feedback allows learners to acquire new skills, knowledge, and attitudes. Learners' perceptions of feedback are an important aspect to assess with valid methods in order to improve the feedback skills of educators and the feedback culture. Background: Although guidelines for delivering effective feedback have existed for several decades, medical students and residents often indicate that they receive little feedback. A recent scoping review on feedback in medical education did not reveal any validity evidence on instruments to assess learner's perceptions of feedback. The purpose of our study was to gather validity evidence on two novel FEEDME (Feedback in Medical Education) instruments to assess medical students' and residents' perceptions of the feedback that they receive. Approach: After the authors developed an initial instrument with 54 items, cognitive interviews with medical students and residents suggested that 2 separate instruments were needed, one focused on the feedback culture (FEEDME-Culture) and the other on the provider of feedback (FEEDME-Provider). A Delphi study with 17 medical education experts and faculty members assessed content validity. The response process was explored involving 31 medical students and residents at 2 academic institutions. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability analyses were performed on completed instruments. Results: Two Delphi consultation rounds refined the wording of items and eliminated several items. Learners found both instruments easy and quick to answer; it took them less than 5 minutes to complete. Learners preferred an electronic format of the instruments over paper. Factor analysis revealed a two- and three-factor solution for the FEEDME-Culture and FEEDME-Provider instruments, respectively. Cronbach's alpha was greater than 0.80 for all factors. Items on both instruments were moderately to highly correlated (range, r = .3–.7). Conclusions: Our results provide preliminary validity evidence of 2 novel feedback instruments. After further validation of both FEEDME instruments, sharing the results of the FEEDME-Culture instrument with educational leaders and faculty may improve the culture of feedback on specific educational rotations and at the institutional level. The FEEDME-Provider instrument could be useful for faculty development targeting feedback skills. Additional research studies could assess whether both instruments may be used to help learners receive feedback and prompt reflective learning.     

Using an Expanded Outcomes Framework and Continuing Education Evidence to Improve Facilitation of Patient-Centered Medical Home Recognition and Transformation

Background: The patient-centered medical home is a model for delivering primary care in the United States. Primary care clinicians and their staffs require assistance in understanding the innovation and in applying it to practice. Purposes: The purpose of this article is to describe and to critique a continuing education program that is relevant to, and will become more common in, primary care. Methods: A multifaceted educational strategy prepared 20 primary care private practices to achieve National Committee for Quality Assurance Level 3 recognition as Patient-Centered Medical Homes. Results: Eighteen (90%) practices submitted an application to the National Committee for Quality Assurance. On the first submission attempt, 13 of 18 (72%) achieved Level 3 recognition and 5 (28%) achieved Level 1 recognition. Conclusion: An interactive multifaceted educational strategy can be successful in preparing primary care practices for Patient-Centered Medical Homes recognition, but the strategy may not ensure transformation. Future educational activities should consider an expanded outcomes framework and the evidence of effective continuing education to be more successful with recognition and transformation.     

2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南文献调查与评价——引文分析

  目的  调查2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南推荐意见的证据引用现状,为合理利用研究证据支撑指南推荐意见提供参考。  方法  系统检索并筛选2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南,纳入有明确推荐意见、证据质量分级和相应分级说明的指南,提取指南推荐意见的引文信息并对其进行分析。  结果  共纳入指南31篇(中文29篇,英文2篇),包含568条推荐意见(平均每篇指南包含18条推荐意见)和3126篇引文,其中2541条引文作为证据在指南推荐意见说明中呈现(此类引文,下文简称“证据”)。平均每篇指南引用82篇证据,平均每条推荐意见引用4篇证据。证据来源位居前3位的国家依次为中国(28.8%)、美国(25.9%)和英国(7.0%)。发表于近5年的证据仅占比39.2%(995/2541)。证据文献类型主要为随机对照试验(26.9%),系统评价仅占比12.0%。  结论  2019年期刊公开发表的中国指南,存在未明确列出推荐意见及对支撑推荐意见的证据引用不全面、实效性差等问题。指南制订者应合理利用当前可得的研究证据,进一步提高我国临床实践指南的制订质量。