期刊简介
《医学争鸣》是由第四军医大学主办,国内外公开征稿和发行的综合性医学学术期刊,是原《第四军医大学学报》的延续。期刊以反映发明与创新、否定与假说、探索与发现等前沿医学思想,传播医学领域新观点、新方法和新成就,服务医学科学研究和我国卫生事业发展为宗旨。主要报道医学学术方面的各种看法和观点,注重理性的交锋、实证的研讨和冷静的争论。
首页>医学争鸣杂志

- 杂志名称:医学争鸣杂志
- 主管单位:第四军医大学
- 主办单位:第四军医大学
- 国际刊号:1674-8913
- 国内刊号:61-1481/R
- 出版周期:双月刊
期刊荣誉:2010年获全军医学期刊“创新奖”期刊收录:北大核心期刊(中国人文社会科学核心期刊), CA 化学文摘(美), 维普收录(中), 国家图书馆馆藏, 知网收录(中), 上海图书馆馆藏, JST 日本科学技术振兴机构数据库(日)
Cooperation between clinical experts and methodologists improves integrity of guidelines
YU Yong-Peng;CHI Xiang-Lin
关键词:
摘要:It seems impossible to make an absolutely integrate,impartial,evidence-based and unbiased clinical guideline.What we can do is to take all measures to reduce potential bias.In theory,the methods and suggestions mentioned in Jack Hirsh and Gordon Guyatt[1] article could reduce bias in the process of guideline making to some extent,therefore,which should not be denied,at least they pointed out the direction to minimising the potential bias for us.As a prerequisite for evidence based medicine,medicine based evidence is in overwhelming status in the clinical practice.Although guideline making should follow the principles of evidence-based medicine,sometimes there exists paradox between evidence base with practice base.It is difficult to evaluate the trade-offs between the degree of bias and required resources including data and evidences from clinical trials for a methodologist without sufficient medical training and clinical experience[2].Just as what is stated in Hai-feng Li paper,guidelines are evidence based,but they are not always practice-based[3].
友情链接