American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis— 2020 Update Executive Summary

Objective: The development of these guidelines is sponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).Methods: Recommendations are based on diligent reviews of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors, according to established AACE/ACE guidelines for guidelines protocols.Results: The Executive Summary of this 2020 updated guideline contains 52 recommendations: 21 Grade A (40%), 24 Grade B (46%), 7 Grade C (14%), and no Grade D (0%). These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision-making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world care of patients. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for the Executive Summary recommendations. This update contains 368 citations: 123 (33.5%) evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 132 (36%) EL 2 (intermediate), 20 (5.5%) EL 3 (weak), and 93 (25%) EL 4 (lowest). New or updated topics in this CPG include: clarification of the diagnosis of osteoporosis, stratification of the patient according to high-risk and very-high-risk features, a new dual-action therapy option, and transitions from therapeutic options.Conclusion: This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis.     

American Association Of Clinical Endocrinologists And American College Of Endocrinology Guidelines For Management Of Dyslipidemia And Prevention Of Cardiovascular Disease - Executive Summary

Objective: The development of these guidelines is mandated by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).Methods: Each Recommendation is based on a diligent review of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors.Results: The Executive Summary of this document contains 87 Recommendations of which 45 are Grade A (51.7%), 18 are Grade B (20.7%), 15 are Grade C (17.2%), and 9 (10.3%) are Grade D. These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world medical care. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for Executive Summary Recommendations. This update contains 695 citations of which 202 (29.1 %) are evidence level (EL) 1 (strong), 137 (19.7%) are EL 2 (intermediate), 119 (17.1%) are EL 3 (weak), and 237 (34.1%) are EL 4 (no clinical evidence).Conclusion: This CPG is a practical tool that endocrinologists, other healthcare professionals, regulatory bodies and health-related organizations can use to reduce the risks and consequences of dyslipidemia. It provides guidance on screening, risk assessment, and treatment recommendations for a range of patients with various lipid disorders. These recommendations emphasize the importance of treating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in some individuals to lower goals than previously recommended and support the measurement of coronary artery calcium scores and inflammatory markers to help stratify risk. Special consideration is given to patients with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, women, and pediatric patients with dyslipidemia. Both clinical and cost-effectiveness data are provided to support treatment decisions.AbbreviationsA1C = hemoglobin A1CACE = American College of EndocrinologyACS = acute coronary syndromeAHA = American Heart AssociationASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseaseATP = Adult Treatment Panelapo = apolipoproteinBEL = best evidence levelCKD = chronic kidney diseaseCPG = clinical practice guidelinesCVA = cerebrovascular accidentEL = evidence levelFH = familial hypercholesterolemiaHDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterolHeFH = heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemiaHIV = human immunodeficiency virusHoFH = homozygous familial hypercholesterolemiahsCRP = high-sensitivity C-reactive proteinLDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterolLp-PLA₂ = lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A₂MESA = Multi-Ethnic Study of AtherosclerosisMetS = metabolic syndromeMI = myocardial infarctionNCEP = National Cholesterol Education ProgramPCOS = polycystic ovary syndromePCSK9 = proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitusT2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitusTG = triglyceridesVLDL-C = very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol     

The Spatialisation of Disease: Foucualt and Evidence-based Medicine (EBM)

In this paper I draw on the French philosopher Michel Foucault for a viewpoint on aspects of EBM. This means that I develop his idea of the spaces occupied by disease. I give much of the paper to only one of these spaces, the space of perception of disease, in order to major on the medical gaze, one of Foucault’s best-known contributions to the philosophy of medicine. As I explain what I mean by each of the spaces of disease, I configure EBM into this space. The conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. Evidence-based clinical practice requires integration of individual clinical expertise and patient preferences with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research and consideration of available resources. EBM can be considered a subcategory of evidence-based healthcare, which also includes other branches of health-care practice such as evidence-based nursing or evidence-based physiotherapy. EBM subcategories include evidence-based surgery and evidence-based cardiology (Guyatt et al. 2008, 783).     

A Computer-Interpretable Version of the AACE,AME, ETA Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice for the Diagnosis and Management of Thyroid Nodules

ObjectiveClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) could have a more consistent and meaningful impact on clinician behavior if they were delivered as electronic algorithms that provide patient-specific advice during patient-physician encounters. We developed a computer-interpretable algorithm for U.S. and European users for the purpose of diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules that is based on the “AACE, AME, ETA Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice for the Diagnosis and Management of Thyroid Nodules,” a narrative, evidence-based CPG.MethodsWe initially employed the guideline-modeling language GuideLine Interchange Format, version 3, known as GLIF3, which emphasizes the organization of a care algorithm into a flowchart. The flowchart specified the sequence of tasks required to evaluate a patient with a thyroid nodule. PROforma, a second guideline-modeling language, was then employed to work with data that are not necessarily obtained in a rigid flowchart sequence. Tallis—a user-friendly web-based “enactment tool”— was then used as the “execution engine” (computer program). This tool records and displays tasks that are done and prompts users to perform the next indicated steps. The development process was iteratively performed by clinical experts and knowledge engineers.ResultsWe developed an interactive web-based electronic algorithm that is based on a narrative CPG. This algorithm can be used in a variety of regions, countries, and resource-specific settings.ConclusionElectronic guidelines provide patient-specific decision support that could standardize care and potentially improve the quality of care. The “demonstrator” electronic thyroid nodule guideline that we describe in this report is available at http://demos.deontics.com/ trace-review-app (username: reviewer; password: tnodule1). The demonstrator must be more extensively “trialed” before it is recommended for routine use. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:352-359)     

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hypothyroidism in Adults: Cosponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American Thyroid Association

ObjectiveHypothyroidism has multiple etiologies and manifestations. Appropriate treatment requires an accurate diagnosis and is influenced by coexisting medical conditions. This paper describes evidence-based clinical guidelines for the clinical management of hypothyroidism in ambulatory patients.MethodsThe development of these guidelines was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) in association with American Thyroid Association (ATA). AACE and the ATA assem bled a task force of expert clinicians who authored this article. The authors examined relevant literature and took an evidence-based medicine approach that incor porated their knowledge and experience to develop a series of specific recommendations and the rationale for these recommendations. The strength of the recommen dations and the quality of evidence supporting each was rated according to the approach outlined in the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Protocol for Standardized Production of Clinical Guidelines—2010 update.ResultsTopics addressed include the etiology, epide miology, clinical and laboratory evaluation, management, and consequences of hypothyroidism. Screening, treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism, pregnancy, and areas for future research are also covered.ConclusionsFifty-two evidence-based recommenda tions and subrecommendations were developed to aid in the care of patients with hypothyroidism and to share what the authors believe is current, rational, and optimal medi cal practice for the diagnosis and care of hypothyroidism. A serum thyrotropin is the single best screening test for primary thyroid dysfunction for the vast majority of outpa tient clinical situations. The standard treatment is replace ment with L-thyroxine. The decision to treat subclinical hypothyroidism when the serum thyrotropin is less than 10 mIU/L should be tailored to the individual patient.     

Transcultural Diabetes Care in The United States – A Position Statement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) has created a transculturalized diabetes chronic disease care model that is adapted for patients across a spectrum of ethnicities and cultures. AACE has conducted several transcultural activities on global issues in clinical endocrinology and completed a 3-city series of conferences in December 2017 that focused on diabetes care for ethnic minorities in the U.S. Proceedings from the “Diabetes Care Across America” series of transcultural summits are presented here. Information from community leaders, practicing health care professionals, and other stakeholders in diabetes care is analyzed according to biological and environmental factors. Four specific U.S. ethnicities are detailed: African Americans, Latino/Hispanics, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. A core set of recommendations to culturally adapt diabetes care is presented that emphasizes culturally appropriate terminology, transculturalization of white papers, culturally adapting clinic infrastructure, flexible office hours, behavioral medicine—especially motivational interviewing and building trust—culturally competent nutritional messaging and health literacy, community partnerships for care delivery, technology innovation, clinical trial recruitment and retention of ethnic minorities, and more funding for scientific studies on epigenetic mechanisms of cultural impact on disease expression. It is hoped that through education, research, and clinical practice enhancements, diabetes care can be optimized in terms of precision and clinical outcomes for the individual and U.S. population as a whole.Lay AbstractThe American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) has created a diabetes care model for patients of different backgrounds. AACE led meetings in New York, Houston, and Miami with health care professionals and community leaders to improve diabetes care. Information from these meetings looked at biological and environmental diabetes risks. Four American patient groups were studied: African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. Diabetes care should use culturally appropriate language and search for better ways to apply science and clinic design. Talking to patients more clearly can improve their diabetes control. There are many other needed changes in the American health care system discussed in this paper. It is hoped that through better education, research, and practice, diabetes care can be improved for the entire U.S. population. This means that important differences among patients' ethnic and cultural backgrounds are addressed.Executive Summary

• Cultural adaptation of evidence-based recommendations is a necessary component of optimal diabetes care.
• Biological factors that contribute to the pathophysiology of diabetes vary according to race and ethnicity and can be affected by social determinants that vary with culture.
• The “Transcultural Diabetes Nutrition Algorithm” was developed in 2010 to optimize diabetes nutrition care globally and represents a validated methodology where evidence-based recommendations from a source culture can be adapted and implemented in a different culture using a toolkit.
• The 2015 AACE Pan-American Workshop examined diabetes care in 9 Latin American nations and concluded that there should only be one level of diabetes care for a population and that level should be “excellent;” also, that A1C measurements should be utilized and that more educational and nutritional options are needed to optimize diabetes care.
• The “Diabetes Care Across America – A Series of Transcultural Summits” was an AACE program conducted in 2017 in New York, Houston, and Miami to examine cultural factors that influence diabetes care domestically; the findings of this program are presented here.
• The African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian American, and Native American populations are each comprised of different ancestries, anthropometrics/body compositions and physical appearances, and cultures and degrees of acculturation, with a significant evidence base that associates specific gene variants with specific phenotypic traits affecting diabetes care.
• For each ethno-cultural population, health messaging and diabetes care will need to consider issues of potential distrust of health care professionals, history of discrimination, religious practices, food preferences, attitudes toward physical activity, and despite the full range of socio-economics, the impact of poverty on engagement, self-monitoring, adherence with lifestyle and medical recommendations, and recruitment for clinical trials.
• Diabetes care should be as precise as possible, incorporating clinical trial evidence that best reflects the ethno-cultural attributes of a specific patient, with particular emphasis on cardiovascular disease risk mitigation, technology to assess the effects of eating patterns on glycemic status, adjusting traditional eating patterns to more healthy options that are still acceptable to the patient, flexibility in lifestyle and medication recommendations that take into account cultural factors, and the utilization of community-based resources to improve implementation.
• Pragmatic first steps to prepare a diabetes practice for an ethno-culturally diverse patient population include: learning more about biological-cultural interactions; gaining experience with lifestyle and behavioral medicine, especially motivational interviewing; creating a safe and immersive clinical environment; incorporating translation services, social prescribing, wearable technologies, web-based resources, and community engagement; and establishing referral networks with clinical trialists in diabetes research to improve recruitment of different populations.

ABSTRACTAbbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1c; AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; ABCD = adiposity-based chronic disease; BMI = body mass index; CPA = clinical practice algorithm; CPG = clinical practice guideline; DBCD = dysglycemia-based chronic disease; DPP = Diabetes Prevention Program; GWAS = genome-wide association study; HCP = health care professional(s); IHS = Indian Health Service; LDL = low-density lipoprotein; MetS = metabolic syndrome; T2D = type 2 diabetes mellitus; tDNA = transcultural Diabetes Nutrition Algorithm; TG = triglyceride; WC = waist circumference     

Process evaluation of appreciative inquiry to translate pain management evidence into pediatric nursing practice

Background

Current healthcare systems have extended the evidence-based medicine (EBM) approach to health policy and delivery decisions, such as access-to-care, healthcare funding and health program continuance, through attempts to integrate valid and reliable evidence into the decision making process. These policy decisions have major impacts on society and have high personal and financial costs associated with those decisions. Decision models such as these function under a shared assumption of rational choice and utility maximization in the decision-making process.

Discussion

We contend that health policy decision makers are generally unable to attain the basic goals of evidence-based decision making (EBDM) and evidence-based policy making (EBPM) because humans make decisions with their naturally limited, faulty, and biased decision-making processes. A cognitive information processing framework is presented to support this argument, and subtle cognitive processing mechanisms are introduced to support the focal thesis: health policy makers' decisions are influenced by the subjective manner in which they individually process decision-relevant information rather than on the objective merits of the evidence alone. As such, subsequent health policy decisions do not necessarily achieve the goals of evidence-based policy making, such as maximizing health outcomes for society based on valid and reliable research evidence.

Summary

In this era of increasing adoption of evidence-based healthcare models, the rational choice, utility maximizing assumptions in EBDM and EBPM, must be critically evaluated to ensure effective and high-quality health policy decisions. The cognitive information processing framework presented here will aid health policy decision makers by identifying how their decisions might be subtly influenced by non-rational factors. In this paper, we identify some of the biases and potential intervention points and provide some initial suggestions about how the EBDM/EBPM process can be improved.     

Evidence-based medicine,opinion-based medicine,and real-world medicine

The freedom of a doctor to treat an individual patient in the way he believes best has been markedly limited by the concept of evidence-based medicine. Clearly all would wish to practice according to the best available evidence, but it has become accepted that "evidence-based" means that which is derived from randomized, and preferably double-blind, clinical trials. The history of clinical trial development, which can be traced to the use of oranges and lemons for the treatment of scurvy in 1747, has reflected a progressive need to establish whether smaller and smaller effects of treatment are real. It has led to difficult concepts such as "equivalence" and aberrations such as "meta-analysis." An examination of evidence-based practice shows that it has usually been filtered through the opinions of experts and journal editors, and "opinion-based medicine" would be a more appropriate term. In the real world of individual patients with multiple diseases who are receiving a number of different drugs, the practice of evidence-based (or even opinion-based) medicine is extremely difficult. For each patient a judgment has to be made by the clinician of the likely balance of risks and benefits of any therapy. Good practice still requires clinical freedom for doctors.     

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology Comprehensive Clinical Practice Guidelines for Medical Care of Patients with Obesity

Objective: Development of these guidelines is mandated by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and the American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres to published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).Methods: Recommendations are based on diligent review of clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors.Results: There are 9 broad clinical questions with 123 recommendation numbers that include 160 specific statements (85 [53.1%] strong [Grade A], 48 [30.0%] intermediate [Grade B], and 11 [6.9%] weak [Grade C], with 16 [10.0%] based on expert opinion [Grade D]) that build a comprehensive medical care plan for obesity. There were 133 (83.1%) statements based on strong (best evidence level [BEL] 1 = 79 [49.4%]) or intermediate (BEL 2 = 54 [33.7%]) levels of scientific substantiation. There were 34 (23.6%) evidence-based recommendation grades (Grades A-C = 144) that were adjusted based on subjective factors. Among the 1,788 reference citations used in this CPG, 524 (29.3%) were based on strong (evidence level [EL] 1), 605 (33.8%) were based on intermediate (EL 2), and 308 (17.2%) were based on weak (EL 3) scientific studies, with 351 (19.6%) based on reviews and opinions (EL 4).Conclusion: The final recommendations recognize that obesity is a complex, adiposity-based chronic disease, where management targets both weight-related complications and adiposity to improve overall health and quality of life. The detailed evidence-based recommendations allow for nuanced clinical decision-making that addresses real-world medical care of patients with obesity, including screening, diagnosis, evaluation, selection of therapy, treatment goals, and individualization of care. The goal is to facilitate high-quality care of patients with obesity and provide a rational, scientific approach to management that optimizes health outcomes and safety.Abbreviations:A1C = hemoglobin A1cAACE = American Association of Clinical EndocrinologistsACE = American College of EndocrinologyAMA = American Medical AssociationBEL = best evidence levelBMI = body mass indexCCO = Consensus Conference on ObesityCPG = clinical practice guidelineCSS = cross-sectional studyCVD = cardiovascular diseaseEL = evidence levelFDA = Food and Drug AdministrationGERD = gastroesophageal reflux diseaseHDL-c = high-density lipoprotein cholesterolIFG = impaired fasting glucoseIGT = impaired glucose toleranceLDL-c = low-density lipoprotein cholesterolMNRCT = meta-analysis of non-randomized prospective or case-controlled trialsNE = no evidencePCOS = polycystic ovary syndromeRCT = randomized controlled trialSS = surveillance studyU.S = United States     

The randomized controlled trial: gold standard, or merely standard?

The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is not a gold standard: it is a good experimental design in some circumstances, but that's all. Potential shortcomings in the design and implementation of RCTs are often mentioned in passing, yet most researchers consider that RCTs are always superior to all other types of evidence. This paper examines the limitations of RCTs and shows that some types of evidence commonly supposed to be inferior to all RCTs are actually superior to many. This has important consequences for research methodology, for quality of care in clinical medicine, and--especially--for research funding policy. Because every study design may have problems in particular applications, studies should be evaluated by appropriate criteria, and not primarily according to the simplistic RCT/non-RCT dichotomy promoted by some prominent advocates of the evidence-based medicine movement and by the research evaluation guidelines based on its principles.     

Coordinated Primary and Specialty Care for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus,Guidelines, and Systems: An Educational Needs Assessment

ObjectiveTo determine knowledge, competence, and attitudinal issues among primary care providers (PCPs) and diabetes specialists regarding the use and application of evidence-based clinical guidelines and the coordination of care between PCPs and diabetes specialists specifically related to referral practices for patients with diabetes.MethodsA survey tool was completed by 491 PCPs and 249 diabetes specialists. Data were collected from specialists online and from PCP attendees at live symposia across the United States. Results were analyzed for frequency of response and evaluation of significant relationships among the variables.ResultsSuboptimal practice patterns and interprofessional communication as well as gaps in diabetes-related knowledge and processes were identified. PCPs reported a lack of clarity about who, PCP or specialist, should assume clinical responsibility for the management of diabetes after a specialty referral. PCPs were most likely to refer patients to diabetes specialists for management issues relating to insulin therapy and use of advanced treatment strategies, such as insulin pens and continuous glucose monitoring.A minority of PCPs and even fewer specialists reported the routine use of clinical guidelines in practice.ConclusionThis research-based assessment identified critical educational needs and gaps related to coordinated care for patients with diabetes as well as the need for qualityand performance-based educational interventions. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:880-890)     

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Primary Care and Endocrinology Clinical Settings: Co-Sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD)

ObjectiveTo provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) to endocrinologists, primary care clinicians, health care professionals, and other stakeholders.MethodsThe American Association of Clinical Endocrinology conducted literature searches for relevant articles published from January 1, 2010, to November 15, 2021. A task force of medical experts developed evidence-based guideline recommendations based on a review of clinical evidence, expertise, and informal consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.Recommendation SummaryThis guideline includes 34 evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the diagnosis and management of persons with NAFLD and/or NASH and contains 385 citations that inform the evidence base.ConclusionNAFLD is a major public health problem that will only worsen in the future, as it is closely linked to the epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Given this link, endocrinologists and primary care physicians are in an ideal position to identify persons at risk on to prevent the development of cirrhosis and comorbidities. While no U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved medications to treat NAFLD are currently available, management can include lifestyle changes that promote an energy deficit leading to weight loss; consideration of weight loss medications, particularly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists; and bariatric surgery, for persons who have obesity, as well as some diabetes medications, such as pioglitazone and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, for those with type 2 diabetes mellitus and NASH. Management should also promote cardiometabolic health and reduce the increased cardiovascular risk associated with this complex disease.     

Evaluation and Treatment of Osteoporosis in Patients with a Fragility Hip Fracture

ObjectiveTo determine whether patients with fragility hip fractures underwent assessment and treatment of osteoporosis during initial hospitalization or recommendations for such intervention were made to the primary care provider (PCP) at the time of hospital dismissal.MethodsA review of medical records of patients admitted with a low-impact hip fracture to the Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, was performed to determine whether recommendations were made to evaluate for or treat osteoporosis. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to the orthopedic surgeons practicing at the hospital to help identify barriers to widespread diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in such patients.ResultsBetween January and December 2004, 174 patients with fragility hip fractures were admitted to the Royal University Hospital. The mean age of these patients was 82.5 ± 9.8 years. Evaluation for treatment of osteoporosis was recommended in only 9 patients (5%). We found no significant differences in the intervention rates between male and female patients, between patients with and those without a prior history of osteoporosis or fracture, between patients who were previously taking osteoporosis medications and those who were not, and between patients who were seen by a medical consultant and those who were not. Most orthopedic surgeons believed that they were primarily responsible for the surgical care of these patients, and because they did not see these patients in regular follow-up, the management of osteoporosis was considered the responsibility of the PCP.Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that only a small number of patients with fragility hip fractures receive appropriate evaluation or treatment for underlying osteoporosis either during initial hospitalization or at the time of dismissal from the hospital. In this study, most orthopedic surgeons believed that evaluation and treatment of osteoporosis were the responsibility of the PCP. Because these patients have an increased risk for future fractures, barriers to the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis need to be removed, and health-care professionals need to be educated about appropriate risk factor modification in these patients. (Endocr Pract. 2005;11:370-375)     

临床医生诊疗现场信息需求现状的初步研究

??????? 目的 探索在医疗信息化背景下,医生诊疗患者过程中的信息需求特点,以帮助找到对策,提高医疗质量。方法 采用问卷调查结合半结构化访谈调查北京大学两家附属医院272名住院医生。结果 医生工作强度高,信息需求大,综合医院门诊医生平均每半天看30位患者;在诊疗过程中,综合医院医生56.1%每天出现≥6次信息需求。这些信息需求最多出现在制定医疗方案阶段;对于两医院的医生,网络信息资源也是一个重要信息获取途径;医生希望信息资源具有信息权威准确、及时更新,载体方便携带、随时可查询及结合临床实际、诊疗方案实现常规化等特点。结论 医生在给患者看病过程中普遍存在信息需求。移动医疗、临床路径结合循证医学有很强的应用前景。     

Secondary Causes of Osteoporosis

ObjectiveTo provide an updated review of several causes of secondary osteoporosis as well as screening recommendations for these disorders.MethodsWe conducted an updated review of the literature published since 2006 on secondary causes of osteoporosis. This information has been added to the relevant data published between 1990 and 2006, which was included in our prior review from 2006. This current review also includes recent clinical guidelines recommendations.ResultsSecondary osteoporosis occurs in almost two thirds of men, more than half of premenopausal women, and about 30% of postmenopausal women. Its causes are vast, and they include hypogonadism, medications, hyperthyroidism, vitamin D deficiency, primary hyperparathyroidism, solid organ transplantation, gastrointestinal diseases, hematologic diseases, Cushing's syndrome, and idiopathic hypercalciuria. These causes have their own pathogenesis, epidemiologic features, and effects on the skeleton.ConclusionThe causes of secondary osteoporosis are numerous, and an understanding of their characteristics with respect to bone density and potential fracture risk is essential in the management of osteoporosis. A heightened awareness of the possibility of their existence is necessary to provide optimal care. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19:120-128)     

Evaluation of the Quality of Guidelines for Myasthenia Gravis with the AGREE II Instrument

Background

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are systematically developed statements to assist practitioners in making decisions about appropriate healthcare in specific clinical circumstances. The methodological quality of CPGs for myasthenia gravis (MG) are unclear.

Objective

To critically evaluate the methodological quality of CPGs for MG using AGREE II instrument.

Method

A systematical search strategy on PubMed, EMBASE, DynaMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) and the Chinese Biomedical Literature database (CBM) was performed on September 20th 2013. All guidelines related to MG were evaluated with AGREE II. The software used for analysis was SPSS 17.0.

Results

A total of 15 CPGs for MG met the inclusion criteria (12 CPGs in English, 3 CPGs in Chinese). The overall agreement among reviews was moderate or high (ICC >0.70). The mean scores (mean ± SD) for al six domains were presented as follows: scope and purpose (60.93% ±16.62%), stakeholder involvement (40.93% ±20.04%), rigor of development (37.22% ±30.46%), clarity of presentation (64.26% ±16.36%), applicability (28.19% ±20.56%) and editorial independence (27.78% ±28.28%). Compared with non-evidence-based CPGs, evidence-based CPGs had statistically significant higher quality scores for all AGREE II domains (P<0.05). All domain scores appear slightly higher for CPGs published after AGREE II instrument development and validation (P>0.05). The quality scores of CPGs developed by NGC/AAN were higher than the quality scores of CPGs developed by other organizations for all domains. The difference was statistically significant for all domains with the exception of clarity of presentation (P = 0.07).

Conclusions

The qualities of CPGs on MG were generally acceptable with several flaws. The AGREE II instrument should be adopted by guideline developers, particularly in China.     

Endpiece: Ideas must be comforting

ObjectivesTo explore general practitioners’ perceptions of effective health care and its application in their own practice; to examine how these perceptions relate to assumptions about clinicians’ values and behaviour implicit in the evidence based medicine approach.DesignA qualitative study using semistructured interviews.SettingEight general practices in North Thames region that were part of the Medical Research Council General Practice Research Framework.Participants24 general practitioners, three from each practice.ResultsThree categories of definitions emerged: clinical, patient related, and resource related. Patient factors were the main reason given for not practising effectively; others were lack of time, doctors’ lack of knowledge and skills, lack of resources, and “human failings.” Main sources of information used in situations of clinical uncertainty were general practitioner partners and hospital doctors. Contact with hospital doctors and observation of hospital practice were just as likely as information from medical and scientific literature to bring about changes in clinical practice.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that the central assumptions of the evidence based medicine paradigm may not be shared by many general practitioners, making its application in general practice problematic. The promotion of effective care in general practice requires a broader vision and a more pragmatic approach which takes account of practitioners’ concerns and is compatible with the complex nature of their work.

Key messages

• Evidence based medicine has emerged as a new paradigm to prevent inappropriate variations in clinical practice
• This study explored the extent to which evidence based medicine’s emphasis on clinical effectiveness, self analysis, and information seeking is congruent with the modes of thinking and behaviour of general practitioners
• General practitioners’ definitions of effective health care fell into three categories of clinical, patient related, and resource related; their main reason for not practising effectively was patient factors, and others were lack of time, lack of knowledge and skills, lack of resources, and “human failings”; and their main sources of information in cases of clinical uncertainty were general practitioner partners and hospital doctors
• The central assumptions of the evidence based medicine paradigm may not be shared by many general practitioners, making its application in general practice problematic
• Promotion of effective care in general practice requires a broader vision and a more pragmatic approach that takes account of practitioners’ concerns and is compatible with the complex nature of their work

     

Transculturalization Recommendations For Developing Latin American Clinical Practice Algorithms In Endocrinology Proceedings Of The 2015 Pan-American Workshop By The American Association Of Clinical Endocrinologists And American College Of Endocrinology

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) convened their first Workshop for recommendations to optimize Clinical Practice Algorithm (CPA) development for Latin America (LA) in diabetes (focusing on glycemic control), obesity (focusing on weight loss), thyroid (focusing on thyroid nodule diagnostics), and bone (focusing on postmenopausal osteoporosis) on February 28, 2015, in San Jose, Costa Rica. A standardized methodology is presented incorporating various transculturalization factors: resource availability (including imaging equipment and approved pharmaceuticals), health care professional and patient preferences, lifestyle variables, socio-economic parameters, web-based global accessibility, electronic implementation, and need for validation protocols. A standardized CPA template with node-specific recommendations to assist the local transculturalization process is provided. Participants unanimously agreed on the following five overarching principles for LA: (1) there is only one level of optimal endocrine care, (2) hemoglobin A1C should be utilized at every level of diabetes care, (3) nutrition education and increased pharmaceutical options are necessary to optimize the obesity care model, (4) quality neck ultrasound must be part of an optimal thyroid nodule care model, and (5) more scientific evidence is needed on osteoporosis prevalence and cost to justify intervention by governmental health care authorities. This 2015 AACE/ACE Workshop marks the beginning of a structured activity that assists local experts in creating culturally sensitive, evidence-based, and easy-to-implement tools for optimizing endocrine care on a global scale.Abbreviations:A1C = glycated hemoglobinAACE = American Association of Clinical EndocrinologistsACE = American College of EndocrinologyBG = blood glucoseBMI = body mass indexCPA = Clinical Practice AlgorithmCPG = Clinical Practice GuidelineCVD = cardiovascular diseaseDXA = dual-energy X-ray absorptiometryEDC = endocrine-disrupting compoundFBG = fasting blood glucoseFNA = fine-needle aspirationHCP = health care professionalLA = Latin AmericaPAACE = Pan-American AACESU = sulfonylureaT2D = type 2 diabetestDNA = transcultural Diabetes Nutrition AlgorithmTSH = thyroid-stimulating hormoneWC = waist circumferenceWHO = World Health Organization     

Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine: Is It Working in Practice?

The principles of Evidence-Based Medicine have been established for about two decades, with the need for evidence-based clinical practice now being accepted in most health systems around the world. These principles can be employed in laboratory medicine. The key steps in evidence-based practice, namely (i) formulating the question; (ii) searching for evidence; (iii) appraising evidence; (iv) applying evidence; and (v) assessing the experience are all accepted but, as yet, translation into daily clinical and laboratory practice has been slow. Furthermore, the demand for evidence-based laboratory medicine (EBLM) has been slow to develop.There are many contrasting observations about laboratory medicine, for example (i) there is too much testing vs insufficient testing; (ii) testing is expensive vs laboratories are expected to generate income; and (iii) test results have little impact on outcomes vs test results are crucial to clinical decision making. However, there is little evidence to support any of these observations. Integrating the principles of EBLM into routine practice will help to resolve some of these issues by identifying (a) where laboratory medicine fits into the care pathway; (b) where testing is appropriate; (c) the nature and quality of evidence required to demonstrate the clinical utility of a test; (d) how the test result impacts on clinical actions; (e) where changes in the care pathway will occur; and (f) where benefit/value can be achieved. These answers will help to establish the culture of EBLM in clinical and laboratory practice.