首页> 外文期刊>American Family Physician >Understanding Rating Systems When Interpreting Evidence/IN REPLY
【24h】

Understanding Rating Systems When Interpreting Evidence/IN REPLY

机译:解释证据/答复时了解评分系统

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

[...] of the 23 executive committee members of the National Lung Health Education Program (the source for the NHLBI recommendation), only one is a family physician, and the preponderance are chest physicians.2 A 2005 systematic review on the use of spirometry for case finding, diagnosis, and management of COPD commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality had different findings.3 The authors found that: (1) clinical improvement was not associated with a patient's spirometric response to therapy; (2) treatments other than smoking cessation did not alter the rate of spirometric decline over time; (3) there was wide intra-individual variation in spirometric decline; and (4) interventions were not effective in asymptomatic persons or those with mild to moderate airflow obstruction. Following the NHLBI guideline, they estimated that 941 patients would need to be screened to reduce one person's COPD exacerbations.3 The authors of the systematic review concluded that the evidence does not support widespread use of spirometry in primary care settings for all adults with persistent respiratory symptoms or those with a history of exposure to pulmonary risk factors for case finding, improving smoking cessation rates, monitoring the clinical course of COPD, or adjusting COPD interventions; that routine spirometric testing in primary care settings is likely to result in considerable testing and treatment costs, resource use, and health care personnel time; and that it is likely to label a large number of persons (many not reporting bothersome respiratory symptoms or having nondisabling symptoms) as diseased who would not benefit from testing or treatment.3 The American College of Physicians' guideline on the diagnosis and management of stable COPD is consistent with this evidence.4 Although American Family Physician articles routinely include a SORT ratings table, readers' understanding of the ratings is important for appropriate translation into practice.
机译:[...]国家肺部健康教育计划的23个执行委员会成员(NHLBI建议的来源),其中只有一名是家庭医生,而绝大部分是胸部医生。22005年对使用卫生保健研究与质量局委托COPD进行病例发现,诊断和管理的肺活量测定法有不同的发现。3作者发现:(1)临床改善与患者对治疗的肺活量测定反应无关; (2)戒烟以外的其他治疗方法并未随着时间的推移改变肺活量下降的速度; (3)肺活量下降的个体内部差异很大; (4)对无症状者或轻度至中度气流阻塞者无效。根据NHLBI指南,他们估计需要筛查941名患者以减少一个人的COPD病情恶化。3系统评价的作者得出结论,该证据并不支持所有持续呼吸的成年人在初级保健机构中广泛使用肺活量测定法症状或有暴露于肺部危险因素史的症状以发现病例,提高戒烟率,监测COPD的临床过程或调整COPD干预措施;在初级保健机构中进行常规肺活量测试可能会导致可观的测试和治疗成本,资源使用以及医护人员的时间;并且可能会将大量无法从测试或治疗中受益的人(许多人没有报告令人讨厌的呼吸道症状或具有非致残性症状)标记为患病者。3美国医师学院关于稳定病诊断和管理的指南COPD与该证据是一致的。4尽管美国家庭医生的文章通常都包含SORT评分表,但读者对评分的理解对于将其适当地转化为实践至关重要。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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