Cargando…
Is general inpatient obstetrics and gynaecology evidence-based? A survey of practice with critical review of methodological issues
BACKGROUND: To examine the rates of evidence-supported care provided in an obstetrics-gynaecology unit. METHODS: The main diagnosis-intervention set was established for a sample of 325 consecutive inpatient admissions in 1998–99 in a prospective study in a UK tertiary care centre. A comprehensive li...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2006
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1431515/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16526965 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-6-5 |
_version_ | 1782127190949756928 |
---|---|
author | Khan, Aamir T Mehr, M Nauman Gaynor, Anne-Marie Bowcock, Malcolm Khan, Khalid S |
author_facet | Khan, Aamir T Mehr, M Nauman Gaynor, Anne-Marie Bowcock, Malcolm Khan, Khalid S |
author_sort | Khan, Aamir T |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To examine the rates of evidence-supported care provided in an obstetrics-gynaecology unit. METHODS: The main diagnosis-intervention set was established for a sample of 325 consecutive inpatient admissions in 1998–99 in a prospective study in a UK tertiary care centre. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to obtain the evidence supporting the intervention categorised according to the following hierarchy: Grade A, care supported by evidence from randomised controlled trials; Grade B, care supported by evidence from controlled observational studies and convincing non-randomised evidence; and Grade C, care without substantial research evidence. RESULTS: Of the 325 admissions, in 135 (42%) the quality of care was based on Grade A evidence, in 157 (48%) it was based on Grade B evidence, and in 33 (10%) it was based on Grade C evidence. The patterns of care were not different amongst patients sampled in 1998 and 1999. CONCLUSION: A significant majority (90%) of obstetric and gynaecological care was found to be supported by substantial research evidence. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-1431515 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2006 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-14315152006-04-06 Is general inpatient obstetrics and gynaecology evidence-based? A survey of practice with critical review of methodological issues Khan, Aamir T Mehr, M Nauman Gaynor, Anne-Marie Bowcock, Malcolm Khan, Khalid S BMC Womens Health Research Article BACKGROUND: To examine the rates of evidence-supported care provided in an obstetrics-gynaecology unit. METHODS: The main diagnosis-intervention set was established for a sample of 325 consecutive inpatient admissions in 1998–99 in a prospective study in a UK tertiary care centre. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to obtain the evidence supporting the intervention categorised according to the following hierarchy: Grade A, care supported by evidence from randomised controlled trials; Grade B, care supported by evidence from controlled observational studies and convincing non-randomised evidence; and Grade C, care without substantial research evidence. RESULTS: Of the 325 admissions, in 135 (42%) the quality of care was based on Grade A evidence, in 157 (48%) it was based on Grade B evidence, and in 33 (10%) it was based on Grade C evidence. The patterns of care were not different amongst patients sampled in 1998 and 1999. CONCLUSION: A significant majority (90%) of obstetric and gynaecological care was found to be supported by substantial research evidence. BioMed Central 2006-03-10 /pmc/articles/PMC1431515/ /pubmed/16526965 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-6-5 Text en Copyright © 2006 Khan et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Khan, Aamir T Mehr, M Nauman Gaynor, Anne-Marie Bowcock, Malcolm Khan, Khalid S Is general inpatient obstetrics and gynaecology evidence-based? A survey of practice with critical review of methodological issues |
title | Is general inpatient obstetrics and gynaecology evidence-based? A survey of practice with critical review of methodological issues |
title_full | Is general inpatient obstetrics and gynaecology evidence-based? A survey of practice with critical review of methodological issues |
title_fullStr | Is general inpatient obstetrics and gynaecology evidence-based? A survey of practice with critical review of methodological issues |
title_full_unstemmed | Is general inpatient obstetrics and gynaecology evidence-based? A survey of practice with critical review of methodological issues |
title_short | Is general inpatient obstetrics and gynaecology evidence-based? A survey of practice with critical review of methodological issues |
title_sort | is general inpatient obstetrics and gynaecology evidence-based? a survey of practice with critical review of methodological issues |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1431515/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16526965 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-6-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT khanaamirt isgeneralinpatientobstetricsandgynaecologyevidencebasedasurveyofpracticewithcriticalreviewofmethodologicalissues AT mehrmnauman isgeneralinpatientobstetricsandgynaecologyevidencebasedasurveyofpracticewithcriticalreviewofmethodologicalissues AT gaynorannemarie isgeneralinpatientobstetricsandgynaecologyevidencebasedasurveyofpracticewithcriticalreviewofmethodologicalissues AT bowcockmalcolm isgeneralinpatientobstetricsandgynaecologyevidencebasedasurveyofpracticewithcriticalreviewofmethodologicalissues AT khankhalids isgeneralinpatientobstetricsandgynaecologyevidencebasedasurveyofpracticewithcriticalreviewofmethodologicalissues |