循证医学的发展与临床医学

循证医学正越来越深刻地影响着临床医学实践。在临床医疗实践中，充分应用循证医学的原则与方法，可为临床、科研、卫生决策、医学教育等提供最佳证据，并应用最佳证据指导临床决策。通过循证医学的概念、物理结构（Cochrane协作网）、主要期刊；进一步论述了循证医学与临床医学的相互关系及其应用于临床的重要指导意义，强调了单凭推理或病理生理学理论来指导临床行为有时是不可靠的。并通过具体实例说明了循证医学在临床实践中所起的重要作用。     

循证医学与临床实践

目前循证医学方法学已广泛应用于临床医疗实践,指导、制定临床各科疾病的治疗方案,评价药物、治疗方案的有效性、适用性,以及为政府部门制定卫生政策、新药的研究、开发评价提供证据,并已形成了许多相关学科。介绍循证医学对临床医疗、中医药发展和药学研究的影响及其临床指导作用,提倡在临床医疗实践中,充分应用循证医学的原则与方法,为临床、科研、卫生决策、医学教育提供最佳证据,并应用最佳证据指导临床决策。     

循证医学与临床实践

目前循证医学方法学已广泛应用于临床医疗实践，指导、制定临床各科疾病的治疗方案，评价药物、治疗方案的有效性、适应性，以及为政府部门制定卫生政策、新药的研究、开发评价提供证据，并已形成了许多相关学科。介绍循证医学对临床医疗、中医药发展和药学研究的影响及其临床指导作用，提倡在临床医疗实践中，充分应用循证医学的原则与方法，为临床、科研、卫生决策、医学教育提供最佳证据，并应用最佳证据指导临床决策。     

外科医师与循证医学

循证医学是寻求证据和应用证据的医学,提倡将现有的最佳证据应用于诊治病人的决策中.循证医学有别于传统临床医学的经验推理方法,可以帮助临床医生科学地选择诊治措施和总结临床经验,从而提高实际工作能力,因此,外科医师同样需要循证医学.与其它学科相比,循证医学在外科领域的引入、应用和发展相对滞后.     

循证医学对高压氧医学发展的启示

1 循证医学 循证医学（evidence—based medicine，EBM）是以大规模随机对照临床试验（randomized controlled trial，RCT）方法及其结果的应用为特征的临床实践新模式，是以证据为基础的医学。循证医学的本质是一门方法学，它是一种获取临床医学信息、评价临床信息可靠性以及制定临床医学决策的基本方法。Davidsackea认为循证医学是“医师慎重、准确和明智地应用目前所能获得的最佳证据，为自己所面临的具体患者作出处理决策。循证医学是近十几年发展起来的一门新兴临床医学的分支学科。但在短短的十多年中已显示出了强大的生命力，循证医学的迅速兴起．是经验医学的继承和发展．它必将使临床理论思维模式、临床研究模式、临床决策模式发生深刻的变革，为临床的研究和实践提供更广阔的视野。必将在医学哲学和实践中发挥日益重要的作用。[第一段]     

循证医学与检验

循证医学 (ｅｖｉｄｅｎｃｅ ｂａｓｅｄｍｅｄｉｃｉｎｅ ,ＥＢＭ )是近年来在临床医学实践中发展起来的一门新兴临床学科 ,它的出现使临床医学研究和实践发生了巨大的变化 ,引起了医学界很大的兴趣 ,很多学科纷纷冠以“循证”二字 ,循证检验医学 (ｅｖｉｄｅｎｃｅ ｂａｓｅｄｌａｂｏｒａｔｏｒｙｍｅｄｉｃｉｎｅ ,ＥＢＬＭ )也由此应运而生。1　循证医学1 1　定义　循证医学是指系统地、严格地搜寻、评价和应用当前研究成果 ,并以此作为临床决策的依据 ,此依据应是当前最佳的科学证据。可见循证医学是提供及应用医学决策证据的研究 ,它…     

胸部影像诊断中应关注的要点

循证医学(evidence-based medicine,EBM)是寻求、应用证据的医学。EBM要求明确地将现有的可靠证据应用于诊断决策中,对患者的权益、价值、期望实行三结合,以制订出最佳的治疗方案。影像学即是寻求和应用证据的医学,在临床医学上有着不可低估的"侦察兵"作用,有着帮助临床作出决策及引导治疗的重要价值,拥有较高的地位。因此在胸     

循证输血医学的实践

循证医学是一种全新的医学模式,强调临床实践中通过科学的方法获得当前最好的研究证据,结合临床医生的专业知识和经验,并考虑患者的需求与价值观,对患者做出最佳的诊疗决策.现已在许多临床学科中得到广泛应用,包括在输血医学领域的发展与应用.本文介绍循证输血医学的要素、发展历史和循证输血医学实践的基本过程、方法与应用.正确实践循证输血医学有助于指导临床输血,促进输血医学的发展与进步.     

循证输血医学的实践

循证医学是一种全新的医学模式,强调临床实践中通过科学的方法获得当前最好的研究证据,结合临床医生的专业知识和经验,并考虑患者的需求与价值观,对患者做出最佳的诊疗决策.现已在许多临床学科中得到广泛应用,包括在输血医学领域的发展与应用.本文介绍循证输血医学的要素、发展历史和循证输血医学实践的基本过程、方法与应用.正确实践循证输血医学有助于指导临床输血,促进输血医学的发展与进步.     

从循证医学角度谈中医药防治脑卒中的研究

0引言循证医学(evidence-basedmedicine,EBM)是近十余年来在临床医学实践中发展起来的一门新兴的以方法学为主的临床学科。循证医学的本意是指临床医生对患者的诊治应该有充分的依据,任何医疗决策需建立在科学证据的基础之上。如何实践循证医学,是临床医生最关注的问题。而高素质的临床医生是实践循证医学的主体,最佳的研究证据是实践循证医学的根本,临床流行病学的理论与方法是实践循证医学的基础,患者的良好依从性则是成功地实践循证医学的关键犤1犦。因此,循证医学并不是一个抽象的概念,而是具有重要临床实用价值的实践医学。随着循证…     

用循证医学思想指导超声诊断学实习教学

循证医学是一种新的医学教育模式。本文探讨在超声诊断学实习教学中,引入循证医学的理念、原则和方法,培养学生的临床思维,帮助学生掌握自我更新医学知识和临床技能的方法和技巧。     

循证医学在康复临床中的应用

在康复医学领域如何开展循证医学?循证医学证据的分级,实践循证医学的步骤,以及怎样才能够通过临床医师参与和利用Cochrane协作网、阅读和应用循证医学文献来寻找到目前最好的证据,以解决患者的实际问题;循证医学应用于心肺疾患、神经系统疾患、骨关节疾患等已取得较好的经济效益和社会效益;而目前的部分系统评价所收集的原始文献尚不充分,大部分缺乏大型、多中心随机对照试验的支持,有的系统评价无法得出对临床有帮助的结论。文章综述了康复科主要相关疾病的循证医学研究概况,为临床康复医师如何实践循证医学和进行康复医学科研提供参考。     

Cochrane图书馆检索方法

循证医学实践的基本过程就是结合临床经验与最好证据对患者进行处理。这个过程包括提出问题、检索证据、评价证据、结合临床经验与最好证据对患者作出处理、效果评价5个步骤。进行临床循证实践的重要步骤之一是寻找最佳证据。Cochrane图书馆是获取高质量证据的重要来源之一,通过光盘和因特网均可对CochraneLibrary进行检索。介绍Cochrane图书馆的内容,Cochrane图书馆光盘检索方法及Cochrane图书馆因特网检索方法,并举例说明。     

Evidence-based medicine: a Kuhnian perspective of a transvestite non-theory

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been presented by its protagonists as a new paradigm for medical practice. In this article that claim is analysed through the theory of scientific development proposed by Thomas S. Kuhn in 1962. Traditional medical paradigms are discussed, as well as the assumptions of the supposedly ‘new’ paradigm of EBM. The value of the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for the elaboration of clinical guidelines is analysed within the context of the assumptions of EBM and the paradigm concept of Thomas S. Kuhn. It is argued that the results of RCTs, whenever contradicted by fundamental medical theory, constitute inadmissible evidence for the development of clinical guidelines. The supremacy of results of clinical trials over traditional medical paradigms, advocated by the protagonists of EBM, is rejected. Fundamental contradictions of EBM are also exposed: the fact that there is no evidence to support the utility of EBM and its call for a new type of authoritarianism in medicine. Finally, it is suggested that ‘epidemiology-based medical practice’ is a better, rhetoric-free designation for what is currently termed evidence-based medicine*. It is concluded that EBM is not what it claims to be and that its assumptions are simply irrational.     

Evidentiary challenges to evidence-based medicine

The evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement has exerted a strong influence on contemporary medicine. It has been used to define the hierarchy of knowledge in clinical medicine by classifying clinical findings according to the perceived relevance and validity of the respective methodologies of studies from which evidence was collected. In the spectrum of theories of knowledge, EBM predominantly relies on findings obtained from population-derived clinical research. This reliance on knowledge obtained from population studies sharply contrasts with a physiologic model of clinical knowledge advocated by basic science researchers and many clinicians. An apparent schism between proponents of physiologic and population models in the approach to the practice of medicine has been created. This dichotomy between practising physicians and EBM physicians in the approach to clinical knowledge should not be irreconcilable. We advocate a consilient approach to the interpretation of evidence and the integration of medical knowledge. This approach relies on 'linking of facts and fact-based theory across various disciplines to create a common groundwork of explanation'.     

Corroborating evidence‐based medicine

Proponents of evidence‐based medicine (EBM) have argued convincingly for applying this scientific method to medicine. However, the current methodological framework of the EBM movement has recently been called into question, especially in epidemiology and the philosophy of science. The debate has focused on whether the methodology of randomized controlled trials provides the best evidence available. This paper attempts to shift the focus of the debate by arguing that clinical reasoning involves a patchwork of evidential approaches and that the emphasis on evidence hierarchies of methodology fails to lend credence to the common practice of corroboration in medicine. I argue that the strength of evidence lies in the evidence itself, and not the methodology used to obtain that evidence. Ultimately, when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of medical interventions, it is the evidence obtained from the methodology rather than the methodology that should establish the strength of the evidence.     

Evidence-based laboratory medicine as a tool for continuous professional improvement

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine (EBM), defined as "the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of the current best evidence in making decisions about the care of patients," seems a tool (a "new paradigm") able to meet individual clinical experience with robust observations. EBM has been driven by the need to manage information overload by cost control and by public request for the best in diagnostics and treatment. METHODS: The application of EBM in laboratory medicine or evidence-based laboratory medicine (EBLM) is aimed to advance clinical diagnosis by researching and disseminating new knowledge, combining methods from clinical epidemiology, statistics, and social science with the traditional pathophysiological molecular approach. RESULTS: EBLM, by evaluating the role of diagnostic investigations in the clinical decision-making process with emphasis on measurable outcome, can help both in improving the quality of new scientific findings and in translating the results of good-quality research into everyday practice. CONCLUSIONS: Since there is a need to integrate many educational tools to focus the strategy on promoting the implementation of best practices, the STARD proposal for robust diagnostic test primary studies, the presence of systematic reviews of high quality, and the development of valid guidelines based on the best scientific evidence may be useful to promote an a evidence-based culture for appropriateness, efficiency, and effectiveness in laboratory medicine.     

Evidence‐based medicine: A cornerstone for clinical care but not for quality improvement

Quality improvement (QI) as a clinical improvement science has been criticized for failing to deliver broad patient outcome improvement and for being a top‐down regulatory and compliance construct. These critics have argued that the focus of QI should be on increasing adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and, as a result, should be consolidated into research structures with the science of evidence‐based medicine (EBM) at the helm. We argue that EBM often overestimates the role of knowledge as the root cause of quality problems and focuses almost exclusively on the effectiveness of care while often neglecting the domains of safety, efficiency, patient‐centredness, and equity. Successfully addressing quality problems requires a much broader, systems‐based view of health‐care delivery. Although essential to clinical decision‐making and practice, EBM cannot act as the cornerstone of health system improvement.