“可信赖性”,对估计效果的信心,以及对将研究成果转化为临床实践的信心。

IF 2.1 Q1 REHABILITATION
Sean P Riley, Brian T Swanson, Chad E Cook
{"title":"“可信赖性”,对估计效果的信心,以及对将研究成果转化为临床实践的信心。","authors":"Sean P Riley,&nbsp;Brian T Swanson,&nbsp;Chad E Cook","doi":"10.1186/s40945-023-00162-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Trustworthy, preprocessed sources of evidence, such as systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines, are crucial for practicing clinicians. Confidence in estimated effects is related to how different the outcome data were between the two groups. Factors including the effect size, variability of the effect, research integrity, research methods, and selected outcome measures impact confidence in the estimated effect. The current evidence suggests that post-randomization biases cannot be ruled out with a high degree of certainty in published research, limiting the utility of preprocessed sources for clinicians. Research should be prospectively registered to improve this situation, and fidelity with prospective intent should be verified to minimize biases and strengthen confidence in estimated effects. Otherwise, discussions related to preprocessed literature, including P-values, point estimates of effect, confidence intervals, post-randomization biases, external and internal validity measures, and the confidence in estimated effects required to translate research into practice confidently, are all moot points.</p>","PeriodicalId":72290,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physiotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10080765/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"Trustworthiness,\\\" confidence in estimated effects, and confidently translating research into clinical practice.\",\"authors\":\"Sean P Riley,&nbsp;Brian T Swanson,&nbsp;Chad E Cook\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40945-023-00162-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Trustworthy, preprocessed sources of evidence, such as systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines, are crucial for practicing clinicians. Confidence in estimated effects is related to how different the outcome data were between the two groups. Factors including the effect size, variability of the effect, research integrity, research methods, and selected outcome measures impact confidence in the estimated effect. The current evidence suggests that post-randomization biases cannot be ruled out with a high degree of certainty in published research, limiting the utility of preprocessed sources for clinicians. Research should be prospectively registered to improve this situation, and fidelity with prospective intent should be verified to minimize biases and strengthen confidence in estimated effects. Otherwise, discussions related to preprocessed literature, including P-values, point estimates of effect, confidence intervals, post-randomization biases, external and internal validity measures, and the confidence in estimated effects required to translate research into practice confidently, are all moot points.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10080765/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-023-00162-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-023-00162-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

可信的、预处理的证据来源,如系统评价和临床实践指南,对临床医生至关重要。估计效果的可信度与两组结果数据的差异有关。包括效应大小、效应的可变性、研究完整性、研究方法和选择的结果测量在内的因素影响对估计效应的信心。目前的证据表明,在已发表的研究中,不能高度肯定地排除随机化后的偏倚,这限制了临床医生对预处理来源的利用。研究应该进行前瞻性登记以改善这种情况,并且应该验证具有前瞻性意图的保真度,以尽量减少偏差并增强对估计效果的信心。否则,与预处理文献相关的讨论,包括p值、效应点估计、置信区间、随机化后偏差、外部和内部效度测量,以及自信地将研究转化为实践所需的估计效应的信心,都是没有意义的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
"Trustworthiness," confidence in estimated effects, and confidently translating research into clinical practice.

Trustworthy, preprocessed sources of evidence, such as systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines, are crucial for practicing clinicians. Confidence in estimated effects is related to how different the outcome data were between the two groups. Factors including the effect size, variability of the effect, research integrity, research methods, and selected outcome measures impact confidence in the estimated effect. The current evidence suggests that post-randomization biases cannot be ruled out with a high degree of certainty in published research, limiting the utility of preprocessed sources for clinicians. Research should be prospectively registered to improve this situation, and fidelity with prospective intent should be verified to minimize biases and strengthen confidence in estimated effects. Otherwise, discussions related to preprocessed literature, including P-values, point estimates of effect, confidence intervals, post-randomization biases, external and internal validity measures, and the confidence in estimated effects required to translate research into practice confidently, are all moot points.

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
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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