• Verknüpfungen von Empfehlungen und Evidenz -Thema „Tumorschmerz“ - AkdÄ
• Verknüpfung von Empfehlungen und Evidenz -Thema „Brennen beim Wasserlassen“ - DEGAM

Hakutuloksista valitaan keskeiset, tasoltaan parhaiksi oletetut artikkelit. … Alkuperäistutkimusten ja katsausartikkeleiden arvioinnissa suositellaan käytettäväksi Evidence-Based Medicine Working Groupin (EBMWG) JAMA:ssa 1993-1999 julkaisemia artikkeleita, jotka sisältävät arviointikriteerit. Työryhmän jäsenet saavat halutessaan kopiot ko. artikkeleista. Niiden suomenkieliset lyhennelmät ovat liitteenä käsikirjan B-osassa. Tutkimukset luokitellaan menetelmällisesti tasokkaisiin, kelvollisiin ja muihin.

Before acquiring papers for assessment, the information scientist or the reviewer who carried out the search needs to sift the evidence identified in the search in order to discard irrelevant material. As a preliminary stage, the titles of the retrieved citations should be scanned and those that fall outside the topic of the guideline should be eliminated. A quick check of the remaining abstracts should identify those that are clearly not relevant to the clinical questions and that should be excluded at this stage. The remaining abstracts should then be scrutinised against the clinical criteria agreed by the GDG. Abstracts that do not meet the inclusion criteria should be eliminated. If there is any doubt about inclusion, this should be resolved by discussion with the GDG. Once the sifting is complete, hard copies of the selected studies can be acquired for assessment. Studies that fail to meet the inclusion criteria should be excluded. Those that meet the criteria can be assessed. Because there is always an element of bias in selecting the evidence, periodic double sifting of a random selection of abstracts should be performed. The study-selection process should be clearly documented and should detail the inclusion criteria agreed by the GDG that were applied in the selection process.

• Example

The literature search must balance specificity (the ability to identify papers that closely match the coverage of the question) with sensitivity (the ability to find maximum number of papers of possible relevance). The initial search may therefore produce many papers that have no direct bearing on the key question. Guideline developers can select out these irrelevant papers using explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria that define, for example, the study type or size, geographical location, date, or specific clinical criteria. These should be explicitly described and reasons for excluding evidence should be clearly stated.

A systematic approach should also be taken when assessing the quality of selected evidence. SIGN uses a set of standard checklists to evaluate how well studies of different types (ranging from systemtatic reviews and RCTs to cohort and case control studies) were carried out and reported. SIGN’s approach to the selection and evaluation of the evidence base is described in detail in SIGN 50.

• Search specification
• Example checklist