Abstract

Practicing physicians are faced with many medical decisions daily. These are mainly influenced by personal experience but should also consider patient preferences and the scientific evidence reflected by a constantly increasing number of medical publications and guidelines. With the objective of optimal medical treatment, the concept of evidence-based medicine is founded on these three aspects. It should be considered that there is a high risk of misinterpreting evidence, leading to medical errors and adverse effects without knowledge of the methodological background. This article explains the concept of systematic error (bias) and its importance. Causes and effects as well as methods to minimize bias are discussed. This information should impart a deeper understanding, leading to a better assessment of studies and implementation of its recommendations in daily medical practice. Developed by the Cochrane Collaboration, the risk of bias (RoB) tool is an assessment instrument for the potential of bias in controlled trials. Good handling, short processing time, high transparency of judgements and a graphical presentation of findings that is easily comprehensible are among its strengths. Attached to this article the German translation of the RoB tool is published. This should facilitate the applicability for non-experts and moreover, support evidence-based medical decision-making.

Highlights

  • Practicing physicians are faced with many medical decisions

  • These are mainly influenced by personal experience

  • the concept of evidence-based medicine is founded on these three aspects

Read more

Summary

Bewertung des Risikos für Bias in kontrollierten Studien

Entscheidungen im Gesundheitswesen treffen Ärzte, Angehörige der Gesundheitsfachberufe, Patienten und Kostenträger nach Abwägung von Nutzen und Schaden alternativer Behandlungsstrategien. Gemäß international anerkannten Standards erreicht der praktizierende Arzt für seine Patienten die bestmögliche Behandlung unter Anwendung der Methoden der evidenzbasierten Medizin (EbM), die sowohl seine persönlichen Erfahrungen als auch die Patientenpräferenzen und die externe Evidenz aus Studien berücksichtigen [1]. Da die individuelle klinische Erfahrung von Zufall und Bias beeinflusst wird und sie somit fehleranfällig ist, fordert auch der deutsche Gesetzgeber ein ärztliches Handeln entsprechend den Methoden der EbM

Validität und Bias
Auswirkung von Bias
Berichtsqualität versus interne Validität
Schlussfolgerung und Ausblick
Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien
Findings
Literatur
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call