The results of clinical studies are usually described with statistical data. When we conduct systematic reviews of clinical studies it is important that the statistical methods used in the original research are evaluated. By doing so, we can assess the validity and reliability of the evidence.
The main task of Campbell Collaboration is to collaborate with Cochrane Collaboration so as to produce high quality evidence for the social welfare, education, justice and criminal, international development policy and other social sciences. This article systematically introduces Campbell Collaboration, its origins, achievements and development, with the purpose of allowing more scholars understand evidence-based ideas and methods of social science, providing evidence-based methodology basis for China's social policy.
Literature bias, which can reduce the validity of a systematic review, comes mainly from the fact that all the related studies can not be collected without exception. The following three types of literature bias are most common. (1) Publication bias. The reason is that some studies can not get published, or the publication has been delayed. (2) Literature retrieval bias. This bias is the result that not all published studies are retrieved during the course of systematic review. (3) Literature inclusion bias. While an improper literature selection strategy is adopted, some useful studies are kicked out by error, leading to such bias. A funnel plot (Y-axis is rumple size, X-axis effect) is usually useful to assess literature bias in a systematic review.
Objective To improve care and outcomes for all migraine suffers, the USHC created these evidence-based guidelines for migraine headache. Methods Firstly, 5 relative Technical reviews were done according to the Methods used in the AHCPR Technical Reviews. Secondly, based on the results of the 5 technical reviews, the 4 treatment guidelines were developed in direction of the USHC’S Methods used in developing clinical guidelines. Results Evidence supporting the acute treatment and preventive treatment were exclusively Class 1 studies, evidence supporting the diagnostic testing were either Class 2 or Class 3 studies , only very few expert judgment was given on some compelling issues without evidence. The recommendations they supporting were high-qualified, middle-qualified, and poor-qualified respectively. Conclusion This Evidence-Based Guidelines is one of the first and most extensive cooperative projects available for creating guidelines. The guideline was developed with systematical and scientific methods and stroven to base all of its recommendations on evidence.
Testing Treatments is a book to help the public understand how to validate the efficacy of testing treatments and the possible bias and error in clinical trial, as well as to call for help to promote good study thus to improve the quality of health care. No matter for the first or the second edition, this book is very popular around the world, and its second edition has been translated into more than ten languages. To help the readers understand the content of the book, we established a website (www.testingtreatments.org) and other sibling sites in different languages. The website not only provided the full-texts to download, but also collected various popular science resources (videos, audios and cartoons) to help the readers assimilate more knowledge. The editors of all the different language websites have established an TTi Editorial Alliance to share experience and provide each other with mutual support, thus to promote health professionals, patients and public around the world to use reliable research to inform their health decisions.
Gordon Henry Guyatt(1953-)is a professor of Department of Clinical Epidemiology amp; Biostatistics and Department of Medicine in McMaster University. He has engaged in evidence-based clinical research and practice for about 20 years. In 1992, he first proposed the term “evidence-based medicine” in one of his articles published in JAMA. He is dedicated to bringing the wonderful idea of evidence-based medicine to bedside and systematically training clinicians from all over the world to acquire the basic skills for evidence-based clinical practice. His great contribution to evidence-based medicine is introduced in this article through demonstrating the development of evidence-based clinical practice.
Objective To make an individulized treatment plan for a patient with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods After clinical problems were put forward, evidence was collected from http://www. nccn.org. The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2008), Medline (PubMed 1990. 1-2008.11) and CHKD periodical database were searched. Results A total of 21 RCTs, 5 systematic reviews and 13 CT phase Ⅲ trials were identified. A rational treatment plan was made upon a serious evaluation of the data. After nine monthes of follow-up, the plan was proved optimal. Conclusion For locally advanced NSCLC patients, an individulized treatment plan made by evidence-based methods not only can inprove the treatment efficacy but also can lead both of doctors and patients to assume the indeterminateness of medicine.