解读临床试验结果

Christopher Kearney MD , Brooke Barlow PharmD , Brandon Pang MD , Nicholas A. Bosch MD
{"title":"解读临床试验结果","authors":"Christopher Kearney MD ,&nbsp;Brooke Barlow PharmD ,&nbsp;Brandon Pang MD ,&nbsp;Nicholas A. Bosch MD","doi":"10.1016/j.chstcc.2024.100097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard to evaluate intervention efficacy and effectiveness. To apply current, evidence-based interventions to daily practice, it is imperative that practicing intensivists be able to interpret the results of individual RCTs in the context of their patients. In this article, we outline an approach to interpreting critical care RCTs from the perspective of the clinician that focuses on answering four questions: (1) Would my patient have been enrolled and represented in the RCT? (2) Is the intervention feasible? (3) Are there threats to the internal validity of the RCT results? (4) Are the RCT results meaningful? Answers to these four questions can be used to assist intensivists in deciding whether to apply RCT evidence to their patients at the bedside and to avoid common pitfalls of RCT interpretation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93934,"journal":{"name":"CHEST critical care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interpreting Clinical Trial Results\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Kearney MD ,&nbsp;Brooke Barlow PharmD ,&nbsp;Brandon Pang MD ,&nbsp;Nicholas A. Bosch MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chstcc.2024.100097\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard to evaluate intervention efficacy and effectiveness. To apply current, evidence-based interventions to daily practice, it is imperative that practicing intensivists be able to interpret the results of individual RCTs in the context of their patients. In this article, we outline an approach to interpreting critical care RCTs from the perspective of the clinician that focuses on answering four questions: (1) Would my patient have been enrolled and represented in the RCT? (2) Is the intervention feasible? (3) Are there threats to the internal validity of the RCT results? (4) Are the RCT results meaningful? Answers to these four questions can be used to assist intensivists in deciding whether to apply RCT evidence to their patients at the bedside and to avoid common pitfalls of RCT interpretation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CHEST critical care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CHEST critical care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949788424000510\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CHEST critical care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949788424000510","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随机临床试验(RCT)是评估干预效果和有效性的黄金标准。要将当前的循证干预措施应用到日常实践中,执业的重症监护医生必须能够根据患者的情况解读单个 RCT 的结果。在本文中,我们概述了从临床医生的角度解读重症监护 RCT 的方法,重点回答四个问题:(1) 我的病人是否会被纳入 RCT 并在 RCT 中得到体现?(2)干预措施是否可行?(3) RCT 结果的内部有效性是否受到威胁?(4) RCT 结果是否有意义?这四个问题的答案可用于帮助重症监护医生决定是否在床边将 RCT 证据应用于患者,并避免 RCT 解释的常见误区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interpreting Clinical Trial Results
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard to evaluate intervention efficacy and effectiveness. To apply current, evidence-based interventions to daily practice, it is imperative that practicing intensivists be able to interpret the results of individual RCTs in the context of their patients. In this article, we outline an approach to interpreting critical care RCTs from the perspective of the clinician that focuses on answering four questions: (1) Would my patient have been enrolled and represented in the RCT? (2) Is the intervention feasible? (3) Are there threats to the internal validity of the RCT results? (4) Are the RCT results meaningful? Answers to these four questions can be used to assist intensivists in deciding whether to apply RCT evidence to their patients at the bedside and to avoid common pitfalls of RCT interpretation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CHEST critical care
CHEST critical care Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信