Educating Providers on Evidence-Based Medical Guidelines

Chapter

Abstract

Fertility preservation is an emerging field that addresses the reproductive health of individuals facing gonadotoxic therapies. This population is diverse and comprises patients with a variety of malignant and non-malignant disorders that occur across the reproductive lifespan. The heterogeneous nature of the population poses unique challenges to the implementation of clinical research. Since the data in this field are evolving rapidly, physician mastery of evidence-based medicine concepts is essential for optimizing patient outcomes. In this section, we discuss the principles of evidence-based medicine, review methods for grading the literature, assess the current state of the literature in the field of fertility preservation, and consider strategies for physician education.

References

  1. 1.
    Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to the teaching of medicine. JAMA. 1992;268:2420–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grimes DA. Introducing evidence-based medicine into a department of obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86:451–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade M, Cook D. Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2008.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sackett D, Rosenberg W, Gray J, Haynes R, Richardson W. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sackett DL, Strauss SE, Richardson WS, Sackett DL, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM, vol. 2. Edinburgh: Churchill-Livingstone; 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Richardson W. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123:A12–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    US Preventive Services Task Force. Grade definitions page. Available at: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/grades.htm. Accessed 18 Dec 2012.
  8. 8.
    US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman E, et al. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. Am Fam Physician. 2004;69:548–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl E, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen C. Pregnancy after human oocyte cryopreservation. Lancet. 1986;1:884–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borini A, Levi Setti PE, Anserini P, De Luca R, De Santis L, Porcu E, et al. Multicenter observational study on slow-cooling oocyte cryopreservation: clinical outcome. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1662–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scaravelli G, Vigiliano V, Mayorga JM, Bolli S, De Luca R, D’Aloja P. Analysis of oocyte cryopreservation in assisted reproduction: the Italian National Register data from 2005 to 2007. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21:496–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rienzi L, Cobo A, Paffoni A, Scarduelli C, Capalbo A, Vajta G, et al. Consistent and predictable delivery rates after oocyte vitrification: an observational longitudinal cohort multicentric study. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1606–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noyes N, Porcu E, Borini A. Over 900 oocyte cryopreservation babies born with no apparent increase in congenital anomalies. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18:769–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cobo A, Kuwayama M, Perez S, Ruiz A, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Comparison of concomitant outcome achieved with fresh and cryopreserved donor oocytes vitrified by the Cryotop method. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:1657–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cobo A, Meseguer M, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2239–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rienzi L, Romano S, Albricci L, Maggiulli R, Capalbo A, Baroni E, et al. Embryo development of fresh ‘versus’ vitrified metaphase II oocytes after ICSI: a prospective randomized sibling oocyte study. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:66–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parmegiani L, Cognigni GE, Bernardi S, Cuomo S, Ciampaglia W, Infante FE, et al. Efficiency of aseptic open vitrification and hermetical cryostorage of human oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23:505–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    The Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:37–43.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, Haynes B. Changing physician performance: a systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA. 1995;274:700–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mazmanian PE, Davis DA, Galbraith R. Continuing medical education effect on clinical outcomes. Effectiveness of continuing medical education: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based educational guidelines. Chest. 2009;135:49S–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis DA, Galbraith R. Continuing medical education effect on practice performance. Effectiveness of continuing medical education: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based educational guidelines. Chest. 2009;135:42S–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bloom BS. Effects of continuing medical education on improving physician clinical care and patient health: a review of systematic reviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:380–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    The Oncofertility Consortium at Northwestern University. Health professionals page. Available at: http://oncofertility.northwestern.edu. Accessed 4 Jan 2013.
  26. 26.
    Fertile Hope. Healthcare professionals page. Available at: http://www.fertilehope.org. Accessed 4 Jan 2013.
  27. 27.
    Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH, Patrizio P, Wallace WH, Hagerty K, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2917–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation and reproduction in cancer patients. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:1622–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Multidisciplinary Working Group Convened by the British Fertility Society. A strategy for fertility services for survivors of childhood cancer. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2003;6:A1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    American Society of Clinical Oncology. The ASCO University focus under forty page. Available at: http://university.asco.org/focus-under-forty. Accessed 4 Jan 2013.
  31. 31.
    American Society for Reproductive Medicine. eLearning catalog page. Available at: https://www.asrm.org/eLearnCatalog. Accessed 18 Jan 2013.
  32. 32.
    The Endocrine Society. EndoSessions page. Available at: http://www.endosessions.org/portal. Accessed 18 Jan 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Reproductive Endocrinology and InfertilityUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations