Objective To investigate the students’ satisfaction on teaching content, teaching staff, organizations etc. of the evidence-based medical postgraduate summer school, so as to provide references for further effective training. Methods A self-made questionnaire with cluster sampling was used to investigate the regular students who had participated in the whole course of the evidence-based medical postgraduate summer school, and the feedbacks were analyzed. Results The total number of the questionnaires was 112 and the number of the effective questionnaires was 101; the effective recovery rate was 90.2%. The students were from 32 universities and medical institutions involving 36 disciplines in 26 provinces. A total of 93.1% of the students were satisfied with the general training organization and management, but the satisfaction rates of the class environment and the time arrangement were only 51.5% and 58.4%, respectively. The satisfaction rates of the whole course setting and the teaching materials were 84.2% and 90.1%, respectively. The satisfaction rate of the teaching content of “the progress of the evidence-based medicine” was up to 93.0%. Over 93.1% of the students believed that the teachers were great in teaching skills, but only 73.3% of the students thought that the interaction between teachers and students was plenty. Conclusion This summer school has active students, a great effect and a high overall satisfaction rate. The summer school is beneficial to the cultivation of innovative postgraduates, construction of excellent teaching teams, development of evidence-based medicine discipline and building of The Network Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Education. The satisfaction rate of the summer school training can get promoted by increasing schooling investments, appropriately prolonging training time, setting different subjects in different semesters and enhancing the teaching interaction.
Intensive discussions and debates concerning whether we should and how to apply evidence-based medicine (EBM) research in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) have arisen worldwide. We always hold the opinion: TCM needs EBM; the evidence from EBM is not limited to randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews; innovative methodological studies are urged based on the characteristics of TCM theoretically and clinically. Based on the methodological training and studies in this area, the authors discussed how to promote the evidence based TCM from five aspects including completing clinical trial procedure, reporting clinical trials according to international standards, reviewing the current clinical studies on TCM systematically, promoting the methodological research and academic exchange and better evidence (knowledge) management.
Objective To investigate an evaluation method of medical literature applicability to clinical work， and provide a convenient way for physicians to search for the best evidence. Methods Delphi method was used to choose appropriate evaluating indexes， analytic hierarchy process was performed to determine the weighing of each index， and the formula to calculate medical literature applicability was formed. The practicability of this formula was evaluated by consistency checking between the formula’s results and experts’ opinions on literature applicability. Results Five evaluating indexes were determined， including literature’s publishing year （X1）， whether the target questions were covered （X2）, sample size （X3）， trial category （X4）， and journal level （X5）. The formula to calculate medical literature applicability was Y=3.93 X1＋11.78 X2＋14.83 X3＋44.53 X4＋24.93 X5. The result of consistency checking showed that the formula’s results were highly consistent with experts’ opinions （Kappa=0.75， P＜0.001）. Conclusion The applicability formula is a valuable tool to evaluate medical literature applicability.
A systematic literature search and a comparative study were conducted to investigate the evolution of the levels of evidence and strength of recommendations in medical research. Fifty systems were included from 1979 to 2007, and 11 of these, which came from five states or international organizations, were selected and divided into three stages according to their characteristics, sphere of influence and application fields. Ideas about levels of evidence and strength of recommendations are becoming mature in medical research. The challenge for the future is how to introduce evidence-based principles and develop the corresponding levels of evidence and strength of recommendations in the fields of management, education, basic medical sciences, economics, sociology and legal research.
ObjectiveTo investigate the updating period, methods and procedures of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in China. MethodsWe searched WanFang Data, VIP, CNKI using the term "guideline" in the title, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) using "guideline" as the topic word up to December 2012. Then we screened and analyzed all included papers. ResultsA total of 380 Chinese CPGs were included. Thirty-eight (10%) guidelines have been updated, among which the longest update period was 10 years and the shortest was 1 year, and the average update period was 5.1 years. Eight (2%) of the updated guidelines had been updated more than once, and the average update time of them was 3, average update period was 4.9 years. There were 42 (12%) of the rest 342 guidelines which have never been updated mentioned that they would be updated. The detailed information of the updated guidelines according to their clinical objectives were as follow:1 (0.3%) was prevention guideline, of which the update period was 4 years; 8 (2%) were treatment guidelines and the average update period was 4.3 years; 5 (1%) were prevention and treatment guidelines, and the average update period was 6.8 years; 18 (5%) were diagnosis and treatment guidelines, and the average update period was 5.3 years; 4 (1%) were technology guidelines and the average update period was 5.5 years; and the average update period of the 2 (0.5%) integrative guidelines was 2.5 years. Forty (10%) of the total 380 guidelines had described their updating methods. ConclusionAccording the analysis of international studies and domestic guidelines, the update rate of Chinese CPGs is low, the update period is comparatively long, with differences found among them. The reporting of the updated CPGs' methods and procedures is insufficient, with less normalization. Big differences have been found in their updating condition among CPGs of different types and institutional developers.
ObjectivesTo investigate sources of evidence of the clinical pathways approved by the Chinese government.MethodsThe approved clinical pathways were obtained from the website of the National Health and Family Planning Commission. Two reviewers independently extracted the basic information, approval date, types of evidence of the clinical pathways and time of evidence. The variance analysis was performed for the diagnosis and treatment parts of clinical pathways and the LSD method was further used for comparison.ResultsThe main types of evidence were guidelines, textbooks, standard indicators and consensus views. Approximately 80% of the pathways cited clinical practice guidelines and 36% cited the textbooks. The median number of evidence for each clinical pathway was 2. Approximately 85% of the evidence could be obtained the time when the evidence published. The average time interval (between the time when the pathways released and the time when the evidence published) was 5.2 years. Specifically, textbooks constituted the largest proportion in all evidence that was over 15 years of time interval. In addition to the textbook comparison standard indicators, there were significant differences in time interval between guidelines or consensus and textbooks or standard indicators.Conclusions The evidence types selection is based on the concept of evidence-based medicine, yet the time span of the referred evidence is larger. Therefore, developing clinical pathways not only need to refer to the latest research evidence comprehensively and enhance transparency of clinical pathways, but also use evidence quality evaluation standards to evaluate and select the referred evidences.