Objective To investigate the decision-making situation of doctors in the township hospitals in Gaolan, Gansu province, and to discuss its scientificity and rationality. Methods Self-designed questionnaire was adopted to investigate the clinical decision-making situation of 108 doctors from 7 township hospitals in Gaolan county. The investigation contained three parts as follows: basic information of respondents, general information of clinical decision-making evidence, and comparison between respondents’ decision-making situation and current best clinical evidence. Results Among the total 108 questionnaires distributed, 89 valid were retrieved. The feedback showed that 79% of the doctors diagnosed and treated patients in accordance with medical textbooks; 53% took curative effect into consideration in the first place; 33% failed to consider patients’ willingness properly when making clinical decisions; and 52% made clinical therapy regimen for common diseases based on the evidence which was different from that in BMJ published Clinical Evidence. Conclusion While making clinical decisions, doctors in the township hospitals do not adequately refer to the best clinical evidence as their decision-making basis, and fail to take patients’ value and willingness into consideration properly. It is necessary to promote the concept of evidence-based medicine and spread the best evidence in the township health departments.
Objective To apply the method of evidence-based medicine to identify the best therapy option for an emergency patient with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Methods According to time and logical sequence of clinical events, a complete decision tree was built after the following steps to find the best treatment: clear decision-making, drawing decision tree graphics, listing the outcome probability, giving appropriate values to the final outcome, calculating and determining the best strategies. Results The performance of endoscopic therapy for the patient with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage within the first six hours had little effect on the prognosis. Interventional therapy after the failure of endoscopic therapy had less mortality than direct surgical exploration. Conclusion Making clinical decision analyses via drawing the decision tree can help doctors clarify their ideas, get comprehensive views of clinical problems, and ultimately choose the best treatment strategy for patients.
Evidence-based dentistry has been established for more than a decade, and described as ‘the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients＇. However, Orthodontic clinicians in China still tend to base their treatment protocols on the ‘it works in my hands＇evidence provided by their peers, mainly due to their weak experience in searching and applying clinical evidences. In this article, authors are willing to share their experience with their Chinese peers, and to promote the dissemination and application of evidence-based orthodontics in clinical practice.
ObjectivesTo provide an overview of whether the clinical decision support system (CDSS) was effective in reducing medication error and improving medication safety and to assess the quality of available scientific evidence.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data, VIP and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect systematic reviews (SRs) on application of clinical decision support system in the medication error and safety from January, 1996 to November, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and then evaluated methodological quality of included SRs by using AMSTAR tool.g AMSTAR tool.ResultsA total of 20 SRs including 256 980 healthcare practitioners and 1 683 675 patients were included. Specifically, 16 studies demonstrated moderate quality and 4 demonstrated high quality. 19 SRs evaluated multiple process of care outcome: 9 were sufficient evidence, 6 were limited evidence, and 7 were insufficient evidence which proved that CDSS had a positive effect on process outcome. 13 SRs evaluated reported patient outcomes: 1 with sufficient evidence, 3 with limited evidence, and 9 without sufficient evidence.ConclusionsCDSS reduces medication error by inconsistently improving process of care measures and seldom improving patient outcomes. Larger samples and longer-term studies are required to ensure a larger and more reliable evidence base on the effects of CDSS intervention on patient outcomes.
ObjectiveTo investigate the influence of misplaced subclavian vein (SCV) catheter into the ipsilateral internal jugular vein (IJV) on transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) measurements and explore the possible mechanisms preliminarily.MethodsIn this prospective study, 408 patients in whom an SCV catheterization was indicated for TPTD monitoring were enrolled. A first set of TPTD measurements was collected at baseline in all patients (group 1, SCV catheters were correctly placed; group 2, SCV catheters were misplaced into the ipsilateral IJV). The parameters included mean transit time (MTt), downslope time (DSt), cardiac index (CI), global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI) and extra-vascular lung water index (EVLWI). A second set of TPTD measurements was performed only in those with catheter misplacement immediately after the misplaced SCV catheters being corrected (Group 3). The differences in MTt, DSt, GEDVI and EVLWI between group 2 and 3 were recorded as ΔMTt, ΔDSt, ΔGEDVI and ΔEVLWI, respectively.ResultsGEDVI and EVLWI were significantly higher (all P<0.001) in group 2 than those in group 1, while CI was not significantly different (P>0.05) between these two groups. Multivariate logistic regression identified PaO2/FiO2 [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.492/10 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.180 - 1.884; P<0.001], GEDVI (OR=1.307/10 mL/m2, 95% CI 1.131 - 1.511; P<0.001) and EVLWI (OR=3.05; 95%CI 1.593 - 5.840; P<0.001) as the 3 independent factors associated with the misplacement of SCV catheter into the ipsilateral IJV. In group 2, GEDVI [(1041±122)mL/m2 vs. (790±102)mL/m2, P<0.001], EVLWI [(20.3±4.0)mL/kg vs. (10.3±2.3)mL/kg, P<0.001], CI [(3.6±1.2)L·min–1·m–2 vs. (2.9±1.0)L·min–1·m–2, P<0.001], MTt [(38.2±13.3)s vs. (30.8±9.4)s, P<0.001] and DSt [(18.9±7.2)s vs. (13.2±4.9)s, P<0.001)] were significantly higher than those in Group 3. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that ΔEVLWI (R2=0.86, P<0.001) was negatively correlated with ΔMTt (coefficient±SE, –0.52±0.12; P<0.001) and positively correlated with ΔDSt (coefficient±SE, 1.45±0.17; P<0.001).ConclusionsDuring TPTD measurements, indicator injection through an SCV catheter misplaced into the ipsilateral IJV results in an overestimation of CI, GEDVI and EVLWI. The increase in DSt might be a key factor in explaining the overestimation of EVLWI in patients with misplaced SCV catheters. Given that the accurate measurements of GEDVI and EVLWI are of utmost importance for guiding resuscitation and decision-making regarding fluids administration, immediate repositioning is required if a misplacement is suspected and confirmed by the chest X-ray.
The American Heart Association and other six major associations jointly released AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain for the first report on October 28th, 2021. This guideline stresses the risk stratification and the diagnostic workup of acute chest pain, considers the cost-effectiveness of low-risk chest pain diagnosis and examination, and recommends sharing decisions with patients. This guideline mainly involves the initial evaluation of chest pain, choosing the right pathway with patient-centric algorithms for acute chest pain, and the evaluation of patients with stable chest pain. This review makes a detailed interpretation of the recommended points of the guideline through reviewing the literature.
After the completion of a clinical trial, its conclusion generally depends on the results of statistical analysis of the main outcome, that is, whether the P-value in the hypothesis test is less than the α level of the hypothesis test, usually α=0.05. The size of the P-value indicates the sufficient degree of reason for making the hypothesis judgment, and can be interpreted as to determine whether a conclusion is statistically significant but does not involve the difference in the degree of drug effects or other effects. Fragility index, which is, the minimum number of patients required to change the occurrence of a target outcome event to a non-target outcome event from a statistically significant outcome to a non-significant outcome, can be used to assist in understanding of clinical trial statistical inference results and assisting in clinical decision making This paper discusses the concept, calculation method and clinical application of the fragility index, and recommends that the fragility index be routinely reported in all future randomized controlled trials to help patient clinicians and policymakers make appropriate and optimal decisions.