Cargando…
Different Weights of the Evidence-Based Medicine Triad in Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment, and Clinical Decision Making
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is defined as a systematic approach to clinical problem solving by the integration of best research evidence with real-world clinical expertise and patient values. Since those early days, decision requirements expanded from patient-centric clinical decision making to a...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5539271/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28824273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40290-017-0197-3 |
_version_ | 1783254456959238144 |
---|---|
author | Schlegl, Evelyn Ducournau, Pierre Ruof, Jörg |
author_facet | Schlegl, Evelyn Ducournau, Pierre Ruof, Jörg |
author_sort | Schlegl, Evelyn |
collection | PubMed |
description | Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is defined as a systematic approach to clinical problem solving by the integration of best research evidence with real-world clinical expertise and patient values. Since those early days, decision requirements expanded from patient-centric clinical decision making to a population-based view including regulatory health technology assessments (HTAs). Regulatory bodies mainly rely on the totality of research evidence, which includes preclinical and all available clinical data. HTA bodies primarily focus on clinical data with a strong preference for comparative data from randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Conversely, bedside clinical decisions are largely driven by real-world clinical expertise, which takes into account the individual patients’ preferences, as well as the availability of supportive research evidence. While the focus on research evidence is a typical feature of the early part of the adoption curve for innovative technologies, HTA decision makers need to ensure that clinical expertise is also appropriately included in their decisions, in order to avoid beneficial medications from being not available to patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5539271 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55392712017-08-17 Different Weights of the Evidence-Based Medicine Triad in Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment, and Clinical Decision Making Schlegl, Evelyn Ducournau, Pierre Ruof, Jörg Pharmaceut Med Current Opinion Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is defined as a systematic approach to clinical problem solving by the integration of best research evidence with real-world clinical expertise and patient values. Since those early days, decision requirements expanded from patient-centric clinical decision making to a population-based view including regulatory health technology assessments (HTAs). Regulatory bodies mainly rely on the totality of research evidence, which includes preclinical and all available clinical data. HTA bodies primarily focus on clinical data with a strong preference for comparative data from randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Conversely, bedside clinical decisions are largely driven by real-world clinical expertise, which takes into account the individual patients’ preferences, as well as the availability of supportive research evidence. While the focus on research evidence is a typical feature of the early part of the adoption curve for innovative technologies, HTA decision makers need to ensure that clinical expertise is also appropriately included in their decisions, in order to avoid beneficial medications from being not available to patients. Springer International Publishing 2017-07-11 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5539271/ /pubmed/28824273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40290-017-0197-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Current Opinion Schlegl, Evelyn Ducournau, Pierre Ruof, Jörg Different Weights of the Evidence-Based Medicine Triad in Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment, and Clinical Decision Making |
title | Different Weights of the Evidence-Based Medicine Triad in Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment, and Clinical Decision Making |
title_full | Different Weights of the Evidence-Based Medicine Triad in Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment, and Clinical Decision Making |
title_fullStr | Different Weights of the Evidence-Based Medicine Triad in Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment, and Clinical Decision Making |
title_full_unstemmed | Different Weights of the Evidence-Based Medicine Triad in Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment, and Clinical Decision Making |
title_short | Different Weights of the Evidence-Based Medicine Triad in Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment, and Clinical Decision Making |
title_sort | different weights of the evidence-based medicine triad in regulatory, health technology assessment, and clinical decision making |
topic | Current Opinion |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5539271/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28824273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40290-017-0197-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schleglevelyn differentweightsoftheevidencebasedmedicinetriadinregulatoryhealthtechnologyassessmentandclinicaldecisionmaking AT ducournaupierre differentweightsoftheevidencebasedmedicinetriadinregulatoryhealthtechnologyassessmentandclinicaldecisionmaking AT ruofjorg differentweightsoftheevidencebasedmedicinetriadinregulatoryhealthtechnologyassessmentandclinicaldecisionmaking |