Examining and addressing evidence-practice gaps in cancer care: a systematic review.
Examining and addressing evidence-practice gaps in cancer care: a systematic review.
复制标题
检查和解决癌症护理中的证据差距：系统评价。
DOI：
10.1186/1748-5908-9-37
复制
发表时间：
2014-03-25
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Fry R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bryant J;Boyes A;Jones K;Sanson-Fisher R;Carey M;Fry R
人们日益认识到最佳科学证据与临床实践之间的差距。本系统综述旨在评估2000年、2005年和2010年同行评审的癌症研究成果的数量和范围。符合条件的论文以英文发表，并报道了癌症治疗的证据实践差距。使用MeSH标题和关键词搜索电子数据库Medline的三个时间段。摘要由一位审稿人根据资格标准进行评估，并由另一位审稿人进行检查。符合资格标准的论文被编码为基于数据或非基于数据，并按癌症类型的焦点。然后将所有基于数据的论文进一步归类为描述性研究，记录证据与实践差距的程度或解决差距的障碍；或干预研究，检查策略的有效性，以减少证据与实践的差距。共筛选出176篇符合条件的论文。随着时间的推移，发表论文的数量显著增加，从2000年的25篇增加到2010年的100篇（p < 0.001）。在这176篇论文中，有160篇是基于数据的。其中大多数（n = 150）报告了描述性研究。只有10项研究检查了旨在减少证据与临床实践之间差异的干预措施的有效性。其中只有一项是随机对照试验。在所有基于数据的研究中，近三分之一（n = 48）研究了乳腺癌护理。虽然调查癌症治疗中证据与实践差距的出版物数量在十年期间有所增加，但大多数研究继续描述最佳证据与临床实践之间的差距，而不是严格测试干预措施以缩小差距。
There is increasing recognition of gaps between best scientific evidence and clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to assess the volume and scope of peer-reviewed cancer research output in the years 2000, 2005, and 2010. Eligible papers were published in English and reported on evidence-practice gaps in cancer care. The electronic database Medline was searched for three time periods using MeSH headings and keywords. Abstracts were assessed against eligibility criteria by one reviewer and checked by a second. Papers meeting eligibility criteria were coded as data-based or non-data-based, and by cancer type of focus. All data-based papers were then further classified as descriptive studies documenting the extent of, or barriers to addressing, the evidence-practice gap; or intervention studies examining the effectiveness of strategies to reduce the evidence-practice gap. A total of 176 eligible papers were identified. The number of publications significantly increased over time, from 25 in 2000 to 100 in 2010 (p < 0.001). Of the 176 identified papers, 160 were data-based. The majority of these (n = 150) reported descriptive studies. Only 10 studies examined the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce discrepancies between evidence and clinical practice. Of these, only one was a randomized controlled trial. Of all data-based studies, almost one-third (n = 48) examined breast cancer care. While the number of publications investigating evidence-practice gaps in cancer care increased over a ten-year period, most studies continued to describe gaps between best evidence and clinical practice, rather than rigorously testing interventions to reduce the gap.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
11.4
作者：
Grol, R;Wensing, M
通讯作者：
Wensing, M
影响因子：
14.6
作者：
Harrison, Margaret B.;Legare, France;Fervers, Beatrice
通讯作者：
Fervers, Beatrice
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
McCullough, Marjorie L.;Patel, Alpa V.;Gapstur, Susan M.
通讯作者：
Gapstur, Susan M.
影响因子：
39.3
作者：
Komajda, M;Lapuerta, P;Le Pen, C
通讯作者：
Le Pen, C
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Debrix, I;Tilleul, P;Becker, A
通讯作者：
Becker, A