首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >A QUESTIONNAIRE TO ASSESS THE RELEVANCE AND CREDIBILITY OF OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES TO INFORM HEALTH CARE DECISION MAKING: AN ISPOR-AMCP-NPC GOOD PRACTICE TASK FORCE REPORT
【2h】

A QUESTIONNAIRE TO ASSESS THE RELEVANCE AND CREDIBILITY OF OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES TO INFORM HEALTH CARE DECISION MAKING: AN ISPOR-AMCP-NPC GOOD PRACTICE TASK FORCE REPORT

机译:评估观察研究的相关性和可信度的问卷调查以指导卫生保健决策:ISPOR-AMCP-NPC良好实践任务强制报告

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Evidence-based healthcare decisions are best informed by comparisons of all relevant interventions used to treat conditions in specific patient populations. Observational studies are being performed to help fill evidence gaps. However, widespread adoption of evidence from observational studies has been limited due to a variety of factors, including the lack of consensus regarding accepted principles for their evaluation and interpretation. Two Task Forces were formed to develop questionnaires to assist decision makers in evaluating observational studies, with one Task Force addressing retrospective research and the other prospective research. The intent was to promote a structured approach to reduce the potential for subjective interpretation of evidence and drive consistency in decision-making. Separately developed questionnaires were combined into a single questionnaire consisting of 33 items. These were divided into two domains: relevance and credibility. Relevance addresses the extent to which findings, if accurate, apply to the setting of interest to the decision maker. Credibility addresses the extent to which the study findings accurately answer the study question. The questionnaire provides a guide for assessing the degree of confidence that should be placed from observational studies and promotes awareness of the subtleties involved in evaluating those.
机译:通过比较用于治疗特定患者人群的疾病的所有相关干预措施,可以最好地提供基于证据的医疗保健决策。正在进行观察性研究以帮助填补证据空白。但是,由于各种因素,包括缺乏关于评估和解释的公认原则的共识,使得来自观察研究的证据的广泛采用受到限制。成立了两个工作队来开发问卷,以帮助决策者评估观察性研究,其中一个工作队负责回顾性研究,另一个负责前瞻性研究。目的是促进一种结构化的方法,以减少主观解释证据的可能性并促进决策的一致性。单独开发的调查表被合并为包含33个项目的单个调查表。这些被分为两个领域:相关性和可信度。相关性解决了发现结果(如果准确的话)在多大程度上适用于决策者的兴趣。可信度解决了研究发现准确回答研究问题的程度。该调查表为评估观察研究的置信度提供了指南,并提高了人们对评估这些评估所涉及的微妙程度的认识。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号