Evidence Based Medicine Critical Appraisal 高雄榮民總醫院 臨床訓練中心 實證醫學組 徐圭璋

實證醫學五步驟 嚴格判讀 (Critical appraisal) 提出問題 (Question formulation) 搜尋證據 (Evidence search) 嚴格判讀 (Critical appraisal) 恰當運用 (Evidence application) 評估結果 (Outcome evaluation)

問題 住院醫師林玲玲對主治醫師的醫囑有所疑問，於是努力搜尋文獻， 終於找到幾篇論文，但是其中結論各有不同，而且也的文章感覺好像不太可信，又有的不太適用，因為沒有人較完整地教過她評讀論文，所以她實在不知道該怎麼辦。

答案？ 看是哪一本期刊？ 看屬哪一個國家？ 看從哪一個醫院？ 看自哪一個作者？ 還看什麼？

嚴格判讀 (Critical appraisal) 信度 (reliability) 效度 (validity) 重要性 (importance) 實際運用之可能 (applicability)

Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence (May 2001) Therapy 1a 系統性回顧 Systematic review (分析數個隨機臨床對照試驗, 其結果均類似) 1b 設計良好, 結果精確之隨機臨床對照試驗 1c All or none 2a 系統性回顧 (分析數個世代研究, 其結果均類似) 2b 世代研究 Cohort study;設計粗糙之隨機臨床對照試驗 2c “Outcomes” Research; Ecological studies 3a 系統性回顧 (分析數個病例-對照研究, 其結果均類似) 3b 病例 - 對照研究 Case-control study 4 某家醫院的十年經驗; 設計不良之世代研究 及病例 - 對照研究 5 未經考證之專家個人意見, 基礎研究, 細胞實驗, 生理實驗, 動物實驗…的結果

http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1157

http://www.phru.nhs.uk/Pages/PHD/resources.htm

GATE Frame: 5 PECOT components 4.Outcomes + - 2. Exposure Gp 3. Comparison 1. Participants 5. Time GATE a general appraisal tool for epidemiology http://www.health.auckland.ac.nz/comhealth/epiq/epiq.htm

10 questions to help you make sense of randomised controlled trials The 10 questions are adapted from Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, and Cook DJ, Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. JAMA 1993; 270 (21): 2598-2601 and JAMA 1994; 271(1): 59-63 © Public Health Resource Unit, England (2006). All rights reserved.

A. Are the results of the study valid? Screening questions 1. Did the study ask a clearly-focused question? Consider if the question is “focused” in terms of : the population the intervention the outcomes

2. Was this a randomised controlled trial (RCT)? Consider: why this study was carried out as an RCT if this was the right research approach for the question being asked Is it worth continuing?

Detailed questions 3. Were participants appropriately allocated to intervention and control groups? Consider: how participants were allocated to intervention and control groups. Was the process truly random? whether the method of allocation was described. Stratification, blocked etc? how the randomisation schedule was generated and how a participant was allocated to a study group if the groups were well balanced. if there were differences reported that might have explained any outcome(s) (confounding)

4. Were participants, staff and study personnel ‘blind’ to participants’ study group? Consider: the fact that blinding is not always possible if every effort was made to achieve blinding if you think if matters in this study the fact that we are looking for ‘observer bias’

5. Were all of the participants who entered the trial accounted for at its conclusion? Consider: if any intervention-group participants got a control-group option or vice versa (cross-over?) if all participants were followed up in each study group (was there loss-to-follow-up?) if all the participants’ outcomes were analysed by the groups to which they were originally allocated (intention-to-treat analysis) what additional information would you liked to have seen to make you feel better about this

6. Were the participants in all groups followed up and data collected in the same way? Consider: if, for example, they were reviewed at the same time intervals and if they received the same amount of attention from researchers and health workers. Any differences may introduce performance bias.

7. Did the study have enough participants to minimise the play of chance? Consider: if there is a power calculation. This will estimate how many participants are needed to be reasonably sure of finding something important (if it really exists and for a given level of uncertainty about the final result).

B. What are the results? 8. How are the results presented and what is the main result? Consider: if, for example, the results are presented as a proportion of people experiencing an outcome, such as risks, or as a measurement, such as mean or median differences, or as survival curves and hazards how large this size of result is and how meaningful it is how you would sum up the bottom-line result of the trial in one sentence

9. How precise are these results? Consider: if the result is precise enough to make a decision if a confidence interval were reported. Would your decision about whether or not to use this intervention be the same at the upper confidence limit as at the lower confidence limit? if a p-value is reported where confidence intervals are unavailable

C. Will the results help locally? 10. Were all important outcomes considered so the results can be applied? Consider whether: the people included in the trial could be different from your population in ways that would produce different results your local setting differs much from that of the trial you can provide the same treatment in your setting

Consider outcomes from the point of view of the: individual policy maker and professionals family/carers wider community Consider whether: any benefit reported outweighs any harm and/or cost. If this information is not reported can it be filled from elsewhere? policy or practice should change as a result of the evidence contained in this trial

謝謝