切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华肾病研究电子杂志 ›› 2014, Vol. 03 ›› Issue (01) : 7 -9. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3216.2014.01.002

专题论坛

临床实效研究的特点和挑战
詹思延1,()   
  1. 1.100191 北京大学公共卫生学院
  • 出版日期:2014-02-15
  • 通信作者: 詹思延

Characteristics and challenges of clinical outcome research

Siyan Zhan1,()   

  1. 1.School of Public Health,Peking University, Beijing 100191,China
  • Published:2014-02-15
  • Corresponding author: Siyan Zhan
引用本文:

詹思延. 临床实效研究的特点和挑战[J/OL]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2014, 03(01): 7-9.

Siyan Zhan. Characteristics and challenges of clinical outcome research[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Kidney Disease Investigation(Electronic Edition), 2014, 03(01): 7-9.

经典的随机对照试验(RCT)是评价理论疗效的金标准,但其结果外推到实际的临床患者时常常受限。 为了帮助临床医师、患者和管理者更好地进行诊疗决策,仅有理论疗效是不够的,还需要提供这些疗法在“真实世界”中的效果,实效研究应运而生。 本文概述了实效研究产生的背景、相关的概念、可以采用的方法,以及面临的挑战。

关键词: 实效研究

While classic randomized controlled trials (RCT) is traditionally viewed as a research gold-standard for evaluation of the theoretical efficacy,the results are often limited when applied to the actual clinical patients. To help health care providers, patients, and policymakers make better health care decisions, only theoretical efficacy given is not enough, as effects of these RCT therapies in the “real world”should also be provided, which has made the outcome research emerge. This article is aimed to briefly introduce the background, relevant concepts, methodologies, and challenges faced in the development of clinical outcome research.

Key words: Outcome research
1
Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, et al. Oxford Centre for Evidencebased Medicine:levels of evidence[EB/OL]. [2009-03]. http:/ /www.cebm. net/index.aspx? o=1025.
2
Chang TI, Leong TK, Kazi DS, et al. Comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel coronary disease in a community-based population with chronic kidney disease [J]. Am Heart J,2013,165(5):800-808.
3
Conway PH, Clancy C. Comparative-effectiveness researchimplications of the Federal Coordinating Council's report [J]. N Engl J Med,2009,361(4):328-330.
4
Clancy C, Eisenberg JM. Outcomes research: measuring the end results of health care[J]. Science,1998,282(5387):245-246.
5
Sox HC, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine [J]. Ann Intern Med, 2009,151(3):203-205.
6
Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes:a user's guide (M). 2nd ed. Rockville, MD:AHRQ Publication,2010.
7
Schneeweiss S. Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research [J]. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2007, 82(2):143-156.
8
陈耀龙,李幼平,杜亮,等. 医学研究中证据分级和推荐强度的演进[J]. 中国循证医学杂志,2008,8(2):127-133.
9
Chakravarty EF, Fries JF. Science as experiment; science as observation [J]. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol,2006,2(6):286-287.
10
李敏, 时景璞, 于慧会. 真实世界研究与随机对照试验、单病例随机对照试验在临床治疗性研究中的关系比较[J]. 中华流行病学杂志,2012,33(3):342-345.
No related articles found!
阅读次数
全文


摘要