Oftalmología basada en la evidencia: la nueva pirámide de la evidencia “6S”

Joaquín Fernández

doi:10.70313/2718.7446.v17.n02.317

Authors

Joaquín Fernández Hospital Vithas Almería QVision

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70313/2718.7446.v17.n02.317

Keywords:

evidence-based medicine, evidence hierarchy, evidence pyramid, medical risk management, artificial intelligence

Abstract

Scientific knowledge evolves rapidly, demanding that physicians stay updated on new diagnostic and therapeutic methods, considering factors like cost and accessibility to improve medical services and patient care quality. Choosing reliable information efficiently is a major challenge for doctors. Understanding research study designs is crucial, with the 6S pyramid simplifying this process by aiding in selecting the most informative material quickly. However, knowledge generation at higher levels of the pyramid relies on prior construction at lower levels. Some topics may only have evidence available at lower levels due to their novelty, necessitating risk management in decision-making. Artificial intelligence holds promise for aiding medical decision-making, potentially enabling quicker and more accurate decisions regardless of physicians’ experience. Overall, mastering evidence-based medicine tools is essential for informed decision-making and effective medical practice.

References

Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature IX: a method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1995; 274: 1800-1804.

Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about). BMJ 1997; 315: 243-246.

Vandenbroucke JP. Observational research and evidence-based medicine: what should we teach young physicians? J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 467-472.

Berlin JA, Golub RM. Meta-analysis as evidence: building a better pyramid. JAMA 2014; 312: 603-605.

Dechartres A, Altman DG, Trinquart L et al. Association between analytic strategy and estimates of treatment outcomes in meta-analyses. JAMA 2014; 312: 623-630.

Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med 2016; 21: 125-127.

Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA 2014; 312: 171-179.

Haynes, RB. Of studies, summaries, synopses, and systems: the “4S” evolution of services for finding current best evidence. Evid Based Ment Health 2001; 4: 37-39.

Haynes RB. Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: the “5S” evolution of information services for evidence-based health care decisions. ACP J Club 2006; 145: A8.

DiCenso A, Bayley L, Haynes RB. ACP Journal Club. Editorial : Accessing preappraised evidence: fine-tuning the 5S model into a 6S model. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: JC3-2, JC3-3.

Windish D. Searching for the right evidence: how to answer your clinical questions using the 6S hierarchy. Evid Based Med 2013; 18: 93-97.

Field MJ, Lohr KN, eds. Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.

Fitzmaurice DA, Hobbs FD, Murray ET et al. Oral anticoagulation management in primary care with the use of computerized decision support and near-patient testing: a randomized, controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 2343-2348.

Gerard MN, Trick WE, Das K et al. Use of clinical decision support to increase influenza vaccination: multi-year evolution of the system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15: 776-779.