选材

只有登录于MEDLINE、EMBASE和CENTRAL数据库中,并经同行评议的随机对照试验和系统性文献回顾会被纳入本网站中。

编写和证据分级

虽然随机对照试验和系统性文献回顾的报告非常容易取得,但现有的实施研究(implementation research)显示应用其结果于协助临床决策并不理想[1]。搜索、识别和检索循证医学的资源是可以很耗时的,而且这被认为是医师解答临床问题时的障碍[2]。以使用者友善格式去再现随机对照试验和系统性文献回顾的关键内容可以有效促进医疗专业人员有效地利用证据[3],而《证视中西医理》旨在将这种概念引入结合医学的领域上。每个概要的证据质量均使用Chinese and Integrative Medicine Evidence RAting System (CHIMERAS)评估,该系统将证据质量分级为非常高到非常低。

有关CHIMERAS的更多资料,请参阅:Chung, V. C., Wu, X. Y., Ziea, E. T., Ng, B. F., Wong, S. Y., & Wu, J. C. (2015). Assessing internal validity of clinical evidence on effectiveness of CHinese and integrative medicine: Proposed framework for a CHinese and Integrative Medicine Evidence RAting System (CHIMERAS). European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 7(4), 332-341.

 

参考文献

1 - Wallace, John, Bosah Nwosu, and Mike Clarke. "Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions." BMJ open 2.5 (2012): e001220.

2 - Coumou, Herma CH, and Frans J. Meijman. "How do primary care physicians seek answers to clinical questions? A literature review IRP." Journal of the Medical Library Association 94.1 (2006): 55.

3 - Alper, Brian S., and R. Brian Haynes. "EBHC pyramid 5.0 for accessing preappraised evidence and guidance." Evidence Based Medicine 21.4 (2016): 123-125.