期刊文献+

共识法在传统医学临床实践指南制定过程中的应用探讨 被引量:31

Application of consensus methods in making clinical practice guidelines of traditional medicine
下载PDF
导出
摘要 长期以来,医学研究领域里对于科研决策过程中人的经验、建议和不同意见、观点、论述等相关主观世界的研究,由于缺乏合适的研究方法,使得无法充分利用其价值。特别是目前在中医临床研究规范化的过程中,这方面的问题尤为突出,亟需解决。共识法可以用来研究群体内不同观点,得出不同层次的同意程度,以达到共识,尤其在专家共识的形成方面被广泛应用。共识法最常用的方法有3种:德尔斐法、名义群体法和共识会议法。本研究课题组通过运用共识会议法经过三轮专家共识会议,完成了世界卫生组织西太区原发性骨质疏松症传统医学临床实践指南讨论稿中"好的临床实践观点"(good practice points,GPP)的形成。本文结合这一实例,重点探讨共识会议法在传统医学临床实践指南制定过程中的应用。 For a long time. in the field of medical research, due to lack of proper methods, research decisionmaking process has not made the most of human experience, recommendations and different opinions, viewpoints, and expositions related to subjective interpretation. At present, this problem in the course of the standardized clinical research on traditional Chinese medicine is particularly prominent and needs to be solved urgently. Consensus methods can be used for studying different perspectives within the group and get different levels of "consent" in order to achieve "consensus", especially in the formation of a consensus of experts, which are widely used now. Consensus methods include three frequently used methods such as Delphi method, nominal group technique and consensus development conference. The research team of WHO Western Pacific Regional Primary Osteoporosis Clinical Practice Guideline of Traditional Medicine completed the preparation of good practice points in the first draft after three expert consensus meetings by using consensus development conference method. This article discusses the application of consensus development conference method in the developing process of clinical practice guidelines of traditional medicine.
作者 廖星 谢雁鸣
出处 《中西医结合学报》 CAS 2008年第6期555-560,共6页 Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine
关键词 传统医学 医疗决策 指南 方法学 traditional medicine clinical decision process guideline methodology
  • 相关文献

参考文献28

  • 1Moynihan R, Oxman AD, Lavis J, et al. A review of organizations that support the use of research evidence in developing guidelines, technology assessments, and health policy, for the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research. Oslo, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services. 2006.
  • 2Burgers JS, Grol R, Klazinga NS, et al. Towards evidence-based clinical practice: an internalional survey of 18 clinical guideline programs. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003; 15(1): 31-45.
  • 3Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, et al. Consensus development methods and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess. 1998; 2(3): 1-88.
  • 4Zhang BT. Evidence-based consensus statements and clinical guidelines: do the means meet the ends? Hongkong MedJ. 2002; 8(5): 312.
  • 5NIH consensus development program, http:// consensus.nih. gov/ [Accessed 2007-12-20].
  • 6NIHConsensus Development Program. Consensus development conferences: Guidelines for the planning and management of NIH consensus development conferences, http://www. oralchelation. net/heartdisease/ ChapterFive/page51. htm[Accessed 2007-12-22].
  • 7McGlynn EA, Kosecoff J, Brook RH. Format and conduct of consensus development conferences. Multination comparison. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990; 6(3): 450-469.
  • 8Eccles M, Clapp Z, Grimshaw J, et al. North of England evidence based guidelines development project: methods of guideline development. BMJ. 1996; 312 (7033) : 760-762.
  • 9Cochrane Methodology Register. http://www. cochrane. org/aceess _ data/emr/aceessDB _ cmr. asp [Accessed 2007-12-20].
  • 10National Guideline Clearinghouse. Agency for healthcare research and quality. 2007. http://www. guidelines. gov/search/detailedsearch.aspx[Accessed 2007-12-20].

二级参考文献13

  • 1Glasziou P, Vandenbrouche JP, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ 2004 ;328 : 39-41.
  • 2GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328 : 1490-1497.
  • 3英国国家卫生服务部评价与传播中心.http://www.york.ac.uk/crd.
  • 4英国循证医学中心.http://www.cebm.net/levels-of-evidence.asp.
  • 5National Health and Medical Research Council. A guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Commonwealth of Australia 1999. http://www. health. gov. au/nhmrc/publicat/synopses/cp30syn. htm.
  • 6Tugwell P, Maxwell L, Buchbinder R, et al. Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. About the Cochrane Collaboration [Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs)] 2007, Issue 1. Art. No: MUSKEL.
  • 7WHO. Guidelines for WHO Guidelines (Annex B). EIP/ GPE/EQC/2003.1. p18. Geneva, Switzerland.
  • 8Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care 2005 ;9 : R575-582.
  • 9Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315 : 629-634.
  • 10Walach H, Falkenberg T, Fonnebo V, et al. Circular instead of hierarchical: methodological principles for the evaluation of complex interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006 ;246: 29.

共引文献194

同被引文献282

引证文献31

二级引证文献240

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部