Cargando…

Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in patients with cystic fibrosis: scientific evidence regarding clinical impact, diagnosis, and treatment

Evidence-based techniques have been increasingly used in the creation of clinical guidelines and the development of recommendations for medical practice. The use of levels of evidence allows the reader to identify the quality of scientific information that supports the recommendations made by expert...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: da Silva, Luiz Vicente Ribeiro Ferreira, Ferreira, Flavia de Aguiar, Reis, Francisco José Caldeira, de Britto, Murilo Carlos Amorim, Levy, Carlos Emilio, Clark, Otavio, Ribeiro, José Dirceu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4075866/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24068273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1806-37132013000400015
Descripción
Sumario:Evidence-based techniques have been increasingly used in the creation of clinical guidelines and the development of recommendations for medical practice. The use of levels of evidence allows the reader to identify the quality of scientific information that supports the recommendations made by experts. The objective of this review was to address current concepts related to the clinical impact, diagnosis, and treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in patients with cystic fibrosis. For the preparation of this review, the authors defined a group of questions that would be answered in accordance with the principles of PICO–an acronym based on questions regarding the Patients of interest, Intervention being studied, Comparison of the intervention, and Outcome of interest. For each question, a structured review of the literature was performed using the Medline database in order to identify the studies with the methodological design most appropriate to answering the question. The questions were designed so that each of the authors could write a response. A first draft was prepared and discussed by the group. Recommendations were then made on the basis of the level of scientific evidence, in accordance with the classification system devised by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, as well as the level of agreement among the members of the group.