Douleur et Analgésie

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 73–77

Evidence-based medicine et Recommandations : traduire les résultats de la recherche clinique dans leur contexte d’utilisation

Article

Résumé

Face à l’évolution rapide des connaissances, l’evidence-based medicine (EBM) et les recommandations pour la pratique clinique visent à faciliter l’intégration pertinente des résultats de la recherche dans les décisions en santé. La formulation de recommandations combine une synthèse des données actuelles de la science avec l’expertise professionnelle et des jugements de valeurs. À l’époque, où le temps du clinicien est de plus en plus limité, les synthèses méthodiques et recommandations pour la pratique constituent une source d’information importante pour la pratique.

Mots clés

Evidence-based medicine Recommandations pour la Pratique Synthèse méthodique Qualité des soins Décision thérapeutique 

Evidence-based medicine and practice guidelines: translating clinical research results into patient care

Abstract

The goal of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and clinical practice guidelines is to integrate the most relevant research results with clinical expertise and patient values. Translating evidence into guidelines is influenced by the organisational and cultural context in which the evidence will be interpreted and implemented. Confronted with the ever-increasing quantity of research results, clinical practice guidelines provide a resource for busy clinicians and a basis for the development of patient informational material.

Keywords

Evidence-based medicine Clinical practice guidelines Systematic review Quality of care Therapeutic decision-making 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. 1.
    Barnes DE, Bero LA (1998) Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 279(19): 1566–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Browman GP, et al. (2005) Practitioners as experts: the influence of practicing oncologists “in-the-field” on evidence-based guideline development. J Clin Oncol 23: 113–1192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Browman GP, Levine MN, Mohide EA, et al. (1995) The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation. J Clin Oncol 13(2): 502–123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burgers J, Fervers B, Haugh M, et al., The AGREE Collaboration (2004) International assessment of quality of clinical practice guidelines in oncology using the Appraisal of Guidelines and Research and Evaluation Instrument. J Clin Oncol 22(10): 2000–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carretier J, Leichtnam-Dugarin L, Delavigne V, et al. (2004) Les SOR SAVOIR PATIENT, un programme d’information et d’éducation des patients atteints de cancer et de leurs proches. Bull Cancer 91(4): 351–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castel P, Merle I (2002) « Quand les normes de pratiques deviennent une ressource pour les médecins », Sociologie du travail, no 44, pp. 337–3356Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dickersin K. (1990) The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurence. JAMA 263: 1385–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eisinger F, Geller G, Burke W, Holtzman NA. (1999) Cultural basis for differences between US and French clinical recommendations for women at increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Lancet; 353: 919–9208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Enkin MW, Jadad AR. (1998) Using anecdotal information in evidence-based health care: heresy or necessity? Ann Oncol 9(9): 963–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fervers B, Bonichon F, Demard F, et al. (1995) Méthodologie de développement des standards, options et recommandations diagnostiques et thérapeutiques en cancérologie. Bull Cancer 82(10): 761–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fervers B, Burgers JS, Haugh MC, et al. (2005) Predictors of high quality clinical practice guidelines: examples in oncology. Int J Qual Health Care. 17(2): 123–32. Epub 2005 Jan 2111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greenhalgh T (1997) How to read a paper. Papers that summarise other paper (systematic reviews and meta-analyses). Brit Med J 315(672): 67512Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grol R, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S, et al. (1998) Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. BMJ. 317(7162): 858–6113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grol R (2001) Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care 39(8 Suppl 2): II46–II5414PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hébert-Croteau N, Brisson J, Latreille J, et al. (2004) Compliance with consensus recommendations for systemic therapy is associated with improved survival of women with node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 22: 3685–369315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Institute of Medicine. Field MJ, Lohr N Clinical practice Guideline (1990). Directions for a new program. Washington: National Academy Press16Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotzsche PC. (2006) Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 333: 78217Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leape LL, Park RE, Kahan JP, Brook RH (1992) Group judgements of appropriateness: the effect of panel composition. Quality assurance in Health Care: 4(2): 151–15918PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manna DR, Bruijnzeels MA, Mokkink HG, Berg M (2003) Ethnic specific recommendations in CPG: a first explanatory comparison between guidelines from the USA, Canada, the UK, and the Netherlands. Qual Safe Health Care 12: 353–35819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moiniche et al. (2002) Anesthesiology 96: 725–4120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mulrow CD (1987) The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 106(3): 485–821PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    O’Connor PJ. (2005) Adding value to evidence-based clinical guidelines. JAMA 294(6): 741–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ong et al. (2005) Anesth Analg 100: 757–7323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oxman Ad, Guyatt GH (1993) The science of reviewing research. Ann NY Acad Sci 703: 125–3124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ray-Coquard I, et al. (2002) Br J Cancer 86(3): 313–32125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ray-Coquard I, Philip T, Lehmann M, et al. (1997) Impact of a clinical guidelines program for breast and colon cancer in a French cancer center. JAMA 278: 1591–159526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sackett D (2000) Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd edition. Churchill Livingstone27Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schers H, Wensing M, Huijsmans Z, van Tulder M, et al. (2001) Implementation barriers for general practice guidelines on low back pain a qualitative study. Spine 26(15): E348–5328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shekelle PG, Kravitz RL, Beart J, Marger M, et al. (2000) Are nonspecific practice guidelines potentially harmful? A randomized comparison of the effect of non-specific versus specific guidelines on physician decision-making. Health Serv Res. 34(7): 1429–48 Health Services Research, 34, 1429–4829PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wils J, O’Dwyer P, Labianca R (2001) Adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer at the turn of the century: European and US perspectives. Ann Oncol 12: 13–2230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Médecine et Hygiène et Springer-Verlag France 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SOR (Standards, Options et Recommandations)FNCLCC, Centre Léon-BérardLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations