美国临终关怀医院的随机临床试验:挑战和现状

R. Kruse, L. A. Gage, K. Washington, D. Oliver
{"title":"美国临终关怀医院的随机临床试验:挑战和现状","authors":"R. Kruse, L. A. Gage, K. Washington, D. Oliver","doi":"10.4155/CLI.15.52","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Conducting prospective studies in hospices can be difficult. We conducted a systematic review to find randomized trials that have been conducted in US hospices and to review them for quality and potential bias. Ten studies met our inclusion criteria; a wide variety of outcomes were studied. Most of the studies had at least moderate risk of bias due either to incomplete reporting of methods or the inability to blind investigators. To provide better evidence-based hospice care, more well-designed trials that are consistently reported are needed.","PeriodicalId":10369,"journal":{"name":"Clinical investigation","volume":"10 1","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Randomized clinical trials in US hospices: challenges and the current state of the art\",\"authors\":\"R. Kruse, L. A. Gage, K. Washington, D. Oliver\",\"doi\":\"10.4155/CLI.15.52\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Conducting prospective studies in hospices can be difficult. We conducted a systematic review to find randomized trials that have been conducted in US hospices and to review them for quality and potential bias. Ten studies met our inclusion criteria; a wide variety of outcomes were studied. Most of the studies had at least moderate risk of bias due either to incomplete reporting of methods or the inability to blind investigators. To provide better evidence-based hospice care, more well-designed trials that are consistently reported are needed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10369,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical investigation\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"1-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical investigation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4155/CLI.15.52\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical investigation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4155/CLI.15.52","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

在临终关怀医院进行前瞻性研究可能很困难。我们进行了一项系统综述,以找到在美国临终关怀医院进行的随机试验,并对其质量和潜在偏倚进行了评价。10项研究符合我们的纳入标准;研究了各种各样的结果。大多数研究至少有中等偏倚风险,原因要么是方法报告不完整,要么是无法使研究者盲化。为了提供更好的基于证据的临终关怀,需要更多精心设计的试验,并持续报道。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Randomized clinical trials in US hospices: challenges and the current state of the art
Conducting prospective studies in hospices can be difficult. We conducted a systematic review to find randomized trials that have been conducted in US hospices and to review them for quality and potential bias. Ten studies met our inclusion criteria; a wide variety of outcomes were studied. Most of the studies had at least moderate risk of bias due either to incomplete reporting of methods or the inability to blind investigators. To provide better evidence-based hospice care, more well-designed trials that are consistently reported are needed.
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
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