共识指南/ Consensus Guide

2005 HTA 对儿童视网膜母细胞瘤的不同治疗方法的有效性的系统评价 返回>>

浏览量:122

发布日期:2005/01/01

英文标题:2005 HTA Systematic review of effectiveness of dif

作 者:国家健康研究学会——技术评估规划(HTA

出 处:Health Technol Assess. 2005 Dec;9(48)

内容介绍:

        In the authors' opinion, the evidence base for the effectiveness of treatments for childhood retinoblastoma is not sufficiently robust to provide clear guidance for clinical practice. Ideally, good-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of different treatment options for childhood retinoblastoma are required. Research is required on all the treatments currently used for this condition. Where RCTs are not feasible, for ethical or practical reasons, only high-quality, prospective, non-randomised studies should be given consideration, owing to the generally higher risk of bias in retrospective studies. To reduce the risk of confounding due to allocation by clinical indication, studies should compare patients with similar disease severity rather than compare patients of mixed disease severities. Standardised outcomes should be agreed for use in studies assessing the effectiveness of treatment. These outcomes should encompass potential important adverse effects of treatment such as loss of visual acuity and cosmetic outcome, as well as beneficial effects.


指南下载:

您尚未登录,马上 登录 ,可下载本指南!



2005 HTA 对儿童视网膜母细胞瘤的不同治疗方法的有效性的系统评价

浏览量:122

发布日期:2005/01/01

英文标题:2005 HTA Systematic review of effectiveness of dif

作 者:国家健康研究学会——技术评估规划(HTA

出 处:Health Technol Assess. 2005 Dec;9(48)

内容介绍:

        In the authors' opinion, the evidence base for the effectiveness of treatments for childhood retinoblastoma is not sufficiently robust to provide clear guidance for clinical practice. Ideally, good-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of different treatment options for childhood retinoblastoma are required. Research is required on all the treatments currently used for this condition. Where RCTs are not feasible, for ethical or practical reasons, only high-quality, prospective, non-randomised studies should be given consideration, owing to the generally higher risk of bias in retrospective studies. To reduce the risk of confounding due to allocation by clinical indication, studies should compare patients with similar disease severity rather than compare patients of mixed disease severities. Standardised outcomes should be agreed for use in studies assessing the effectiveness of treatment. These outcomes should encompass potential important adverse effects of treatment such as loss of visual acuity and cosmetic outcome, as well as beneficial effects.


指南下载:

您尚未登录,马上 登录 ,可下载本指南!