...
首页> 外文期刊>Chest: The Journal of Circulation, Respiration and Related Systems >Grades of recommendation for antithrombotic agents: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition).
【24h】

Grades of recommendation for antithrombotic agents: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition).

机译:抗血栓药的推荐等级:美国胸科医师学院循证临床实践指南(第8版)。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

This chapter describes the system used by the American College of Chest Physicians to grade recommendations for antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy as part of the Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Clinicians need to know if a recommendation is strong or weak, and the methodologic quality of the evidence underlying that recommendation. We determine the strength of a recommendation by considering the balance between the desirable effects of an intervention and the undesirable effects (incremental harms, burdens, and for select recommendations, costs). If the desirable effects outweigh the undesirable effects, we recommend that clinicians offer an intervention to typical patients. The uncertainty associated with the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects will determine the strength of recommendations. If we are confident that benefits do or do not outweigh harms, burden, and costs, we make a strong recommendation in our formulation, Grade 1. If we are less certain of the magnitude of the benefits and risks, burden, and costs, and thus their relative impact, we make a weaker Grade 2 recommendation. For grading methodologic quality, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) begin as high-quality evidence (designated by "A"), but quality can decrease to moderate ("B"), or low ("C") as a result of poor design and conduct of RCTs, imprecision, inconsistency of results, indirectness, or a high likelihood for reporting bias. Observational studies begin as low quality of evidence (C) but can increase in quality on the basis of very large treatment effects. Strong (Grade 1) recommendations can be applied uniformly to most patients. Weak (Grade 2) suggestions require more judicious application, particularly considering patient values and preferences and, when resource limitations play an important role, issues of cost.
机译:本章介绍了美国胸科医师学院用于对抗血栓和溶栓治疗的建议进行评分的系统,作为抗血栓和溶栓治疗的一部分:《美国胸科医师学院循证临床实践指南》(第8版)。临床医生需要知道建议的强项或弱项,以及该建议所依据的证据的方法学质量。我们通过考虑干预措施的理想效果和不良效果(增加的危害,负担,以及对于某些推荐的建议,成本)之间的平衡来确定建议的强度。如果理想的效果大于不良的效果,我们建议临床医生对典型患者进行干预。与理想效果和不良效果之间的平衡相关的不确定性将决定建议的强度。如果我们确信收益超过或未超过伤害,负担和成本,我们会在等级1中提出强烈建议。如果我们不确定收益和风险,负担和成本的幅度,以及因此,由于它们的相对影响,我们提出了较弱的2级建议。为了对方法学质量进行分级,随机对照试验(RCT)作为高质量的证据(以“ A”表示)开始,但是由于设计不良,质量可能降低到中等(“ B”)或低(“ C”) RCT的执行,不精确,结果不一致,间接或报告偏见的可能性很高。观察性研究始于证据质量低(C),但由于治疗效果非常好,其质量可能会提高。强烈(1级)建议可统一应用于大多数患者。较弱的(第2级)建议需要更明智的应用,尤其是考虑到患者的价值观和喜好,以及在资源限制起重要作用时,还要考虑成本问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
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