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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schlegl, Evelyn, Ducournau, Pierre, Ruof, Jörg
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