Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Levels of Evidence
There are different types of evidence available to answer clinical queries. These can
be arranged as a hierarchy in a pyramid as shown in below:
Systematic Review
Randomised Control Trial
Cohort Study
Case Control Study
Case Series & Case Reports
Expert Opinion
Anecdotal
The pyramid is a list of studies which provide evidence with anecdotal evidence at
the bottom providing the least reliable evidence and a systematic review at the top
providing the strongest evidence. As you move up the pyramid the amount of
available literature decreases, but its relevance to the clinical setting increases. You
may not always find the best level of evidence (eg: a systematic review) to answer
your question. In the absence of the best evidence, you then need to consider
moving down the pyramid to other types of studies.
More detailed levels of evidence tables can be found at: www.cebm.net (under More
EBM tools)
Piramida adalah daftar studi yang memberikan bukti dengan bukti anekdot di bagian
bawah memberikan bukti paling handal dan peninjauan secara sistematis di atas
memberikan bukti kuat. Ketika Anda bergerak ke atas piramida jumlah penurunan
literatur yang tersedia, tetapi relevansinya dengan pengaturan klinis meningkat. Anda
mungkin tidak selalu menemukan tingkat terbaik bukti (misalnya: review sistematis)
untuk menjawab pertanyaan Anda. Dengan tidak adanya bukti terbaik, maka Anda
perlu mempertimbangkan bergerak turun piramida untuk jenis lain studi.
Tingkat yang lebih rinci dari tabel bukti dapat ditemukan di: www.cebm.net (di bawah
alat Lebih EBM)
7This is an experimental study in which eligible people are randomly allocated into
two groups: an intervention group and a control group. The intervention group
receives the intervention under consideration and control group receives an
alternative. The results are assessed by comparing outcomes in each group.
Adapted from: Cochrane Collaboration glossary (online) www.cochrane.org/glossary/ (accessed
12/4/12)
Single blinding - the participant doesnt know which arm of the trial s/he has
been allocated to.
menyilaukan Tunggal - peserta tidak tahu mana lengan sidang s / ia telah dialokasikan
untuk.
Double blinding - neither the trial administrator nor the participant knows which
arm of the trial the participant has been allocated to.
Ganda membutakan - tidak sidang administrator atau peserta tahu yang lengan dari
sidang peserta telah dialokasikan untuk.
Triple blinding - neither the participant, trial administrator nor researcher knows
which arm of the trial the participant has been allocated to.
tiga - tidak peserta yang menyilaukan pengadilan administrator atau peneliti tahu yang
lengan dari sidang peserta telah dialokasikan untuk.
relationship does not mean than one factor necessarily caused the other. Clinical
questions that should be examined by a case-control study include:
Ini adalah studi di mana pasien yang sudah memiliki kondisi tertentu dibandingkan
dengan orang-orang yang tidak. Studi jenis ini sering kurang dapat diandalkan
daripada acak terkontrol dan Studi kohort karena menampilkan hubungan Statistik
tidak berarti daripada satu faktor selalu disebabkan yang lain. Pertanyaanpertanyaan klinis yang harus diperiksa oleh studi kasus-kontrol meliputi:
o Does whooping cough vaccine cause brain damage?
o lakukan overhead kabel listrik menyebabkan leukaemia?
o Do overhead power cables cause leukaemia?
o Ya apakah batuk rejan vaksin menyebabkan kerusakan otak?
Expert opinion
Pendapat ahli
This is a consensus of experience and opinions between professionals.
Ini adalah sebuah konsensus dari pengalaman dan pendapat antara profesional.
Anecdotal evidence
Bukti berupa anekdotal
This is something overheard somewhere.
Ini adalah sesuatu mendengar di suatu tempat.
Statistics
statistik
Power Calculation
Perhitungan daya
A sample size calculation designed to highlight the likelihood of detecting a true
difference between outcomes in the control and intervention groups. They allow
researchers to work out how large a sample they will need in order to have a
moderate, high or very high chance of detecting a true difference between the
groups. It is common for studies to stipulate a power of between 80% and 90%.
Greenhalgh, T. (2010). How to read a paper: the basics of evidence based medicine. 4th edn.
London: BMJ Books.
Probability (p value)
Kemungkinan (p nilai)
The p value gives a measure of how likely it is that any differences between the
control and experimental groups are due to chance alone. P values can range from 0
(impossible for the event to happen by chance) to 1 (the event will certainly happen).
Nilai p memberikan ukuran berapa besar kemungkinan itu adalah bahwa ada
perbedaan antara kontrol dan kelompok-kelompok eksperimental yang kebetulan
saja. Nilai-nilai P dapat berkisar dari 0 (mustahil acara itu terjadi secara kebetulan) 1
(acara pasti akan terjadi).
If p=0.001 the likelihood of a result happening by chance is extremely low: 1 in 1000
If p=0.05 it is fairly unlikely that the result happened by chance: 1 in 20
If p=0.5
it is fairly likely that the result happened by chance: 1 in 2
If p=0.75 it is very likely that the result happened by chance: 3 in 4
Jika p = 0.001 kemungkinan hasil yang terjadi secara kebetulan sangat
rendah: 1 dalam 1000
jika p = 0.05 cukup tidak mungkin bahwa hasilnya terjadi secara
kebetulan: 1 dalam 20
jika p = 0.5 cukup kemungkinan bahwa hasilnya terjadi secara kebetulan:
1 dalam 2 jika p = 0.75 sangat mungkin bahwa hasilnya terjadi secara
kebetulan: 3 dalam 4
Results where p is less than 0.05 are often said to be significant. This is just an
arbitrary figure as in 1 in 20 cases, the results could be due to chance.
Hasil di mana p adalah kurang dari 0,05 yang sering dikatakan signifikan. ini
hanyalah sebuah sewenang-wenang tokoh seperti dalam 1 dalam 20 kasus, hasilnya
bisa menjadi karena kebetulan.
Confidence Intervals
Interval keyakinan
These are used in the same way as p values in assessing the effects of chance but
can give you more information. Any result obtained in a sample of patients can only
give an estimate of the result which would be obtained in the whole population. The
real value will not be known, but the confidence interval can show the size of the
likely variation from the true figure. A 95% confidence interval means that there is a
95% chance that the true result lies within the range specified. (This is equivalent t o
a p value of 0.05). The larger the trial the narrower the confidence interval, and
therefore the more likely the result is to be definitive. In an odds ratio diagram if the
confidence interval crosses the line of zero difference (no effect) it can mean either
that there is no significant difference between the treatments and/or that the sample
size was too small to allow us to be confident where the true result lies.
Ini digunakan dengan cara yang sama seperti p nilai-nilai dalam menilai efek
kesempatan tetapi dapat memberikan informasi lebih banyak.Setiap hasil yang
diperoleh dalam sampel pasien hanya bisa memberikan perkiraan hasil yang akan
diperoleh di seluruh penduduk.Nilai riil tidak akan diketahui, tapi keyakinan interval
dapat menunjukkan ukuran kemungkinan variasi dari benar gambar.95 % keyakinan
interval artinya ada 95 % kesempatan yang benar hasil iies dalam kisaran
ditentukan.( ini adalah setara tidak ya sebuah p nilai 0,05 ).Yang lebih besar sidang
yang sempit interval kepercayaannya, dan karena itu makin besar kemungkinan hasil
yang harus definitif.Dalam sebuah diagram peluang rasio jika keyakinan interval
melintasi garis nol perbedaan ( tidak ada efek ) itu bisa berarti bahwa tidak ada
perbedaan menonjol antara perawatan dan / atau bahwa sampel ukuran itu terlalu
kecil untuk memungkinkan kita untuk menjadi percaya diri di mana benar hasil
pernahberbohong.
Intention-to-treat analysis
Niat untuk mengobati analisis
An intention-to-treat analysis is one in which all the participants in a trial are analysed
according to the intervention to which they were allocated, whether they received it or
not (for whatever reason). Intention-to-treat analyses are favoured in assessments of
effectiveness as they reflect the non-compliance and treatment changes that are
likely to occur when the intervention is used in practice and because of the risk of
bias when participants are excluded from the analysis.
Adapted from: Cochrane Collaboration glossary (online) www.cochrane.org/glossary/ (accessed
12/4/12)
Anything which erroneously influences the conclusions about groups and distorts
comparisons. In RCTs sources of bias to look for are:
Apa pun yang keliru mempengaruhi kesimpulan tentang kelompok dan
mendistorsi perbandingan.Dalam rcts sumber bias untuk mencari adalah:
Selection bias: systematic differences in the groups being compared
caused by incomplete randomisation (allocation stage).
Performance bias: systematic differences in the care provided apart from
the intervention being evaluated (intervention stage).
Exclusion bias: systematic differences in withdrawals / exclusions of people
from the trial (follow up stage).
Detection bias: systematic differences in the ways outcomes are assessed
(outcomes stage).
Greenhalgh, T. (2010). How to read a paper: the basics of evidence based medicine. 4th edn.
London: BMJ Books.
Rasio.
Pembilang / ( denominator - pembilang ).
Outcome event
Total
Yes
No
Experimental
group
a+b
Control group
c+d
a+c
b+d
a+b+c+d
Total
a
b.
c
d.
Odds ratio (OR) is: a ratio of ratios.
OR = ad
bc.
Dr Kate O'Donnell, General Practice & Primary Care, University of Glasgow.