作者: E. P Whitlock
DOI: 10.1136/BMJ.327.7429.E263
关键词: Systematic review 、 Brief intervention 、 Number needed to screen 、 Randomized controlled trial 、 Alternative medicine 、 Family medicine 、 Primary care 、 Trustworthiness 、 Medicine 、 Pediatrics 、 Intervention (counseling) 、 General Medicine
摘要: Behind the numbers What should primary care doctors do about screening for alcohol problems? Beich and colleagues (p 590) seem to have provided answer: Nothing. Some will consider their results authoritative conclude these activities are ineffective in general practice. But as with all systematic reviews meta-analyses, there can be devils details. Beich et al addressed a clinically important question: “How effective is practice identifying drinkers who benefit from brief intervention?” The most trustworthy answer would come randomized controlled trial of intervention compared no or intervention, but such studies exist.1 provide direct measurement number needed screen (NNS) one patient.2 In absence evaluating evidence, reviewers forced examine link separate bodies evidence (Is test accurate? How intervention?). With …