Dissemination of Evidence-Based Standards of Care

Abstract

Standards of care pertain to crafting and implementing patient-centered treatment interventions. Standards of care must take into consideration the patient's gender, ethnicity, medical and dental history, insurance coverage (or socioeconomic level, if a private patient), and the timeliness of the targeted scientific evidence. This resolves into a process by which clinical decision-making about the optimal patient-centered treatment relies on the best available research evidence, and all other necessary inputs and factors to provide the best possible treatment. Standards of care must be evidence-based, and not merely based on the evidence – the dichotomy being critical in contemporary health services research and practice. Evidence-based standards of care must rest on the best available evidence that emerges from a concerted hypothesis-driven process of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Health information technology needs to become an every-day reality in health services research and practice to ensure evidence-based standards of care. Current trends indicate that user-friendly methodologies, for the dissemination of evidence-based standards of care, must be developed, tested and distributed. They should include approaches for the quantification and analysis of the textual content of systematic reviews and of their summaries in the form of critical reviews and lay-language summaries.

New tools for the investigations of Neuro-AIDS at a molecular level: The potential role of data-mining

“…In particular, the analysis of gene interaction maps and the ranking of genes according to their interconnections might help in identifying new targets for dedicated experimental analyses, which may confirm or discard each hypothesis and suggest potential risk factors and therapy targets [6]. Taken together, and in the current context of translational effectiveness, the utilization of the best available data in specific clinical settings for patientcentered care, the cutting-edge concepts we have discussed here confirm that bioinformatics and data-mining will have an increasingly important role in the integration of translational research findings for evidence-based diagnosis and prognostic interventions for patients with Neuro-AIDS, which require new and improved bioinformation dissemination structures, such as those we have proposed previously [11– 13]. …”

Reliability of Quality Assessments in Research Synthesis: Securing the Highest Quality Bioinformation for HIT

“…H[b]IT stands today at the forefront of development and innovation in new technologies in hardware (e.g., increased size capacity of servers to store bioinformation; faster and more reliable provider point of entry technologies), in software (e.g., improved electronic health record software for the collection, storage and retrieval of patient information, medical histories, laboratory and imaging data, clinical diagnoses and prognostic observations), and in improved advanced health (bio)information informatics (i.e., synthesis of the research evidence pertaining to the patient's condition into the consensus of the best available evidence). The best available evidence leads to new and improved clinical practice guidelines, and is translated for dissemination, via H[b] IT, to the stakeholders [ 2 , 3 ].…”

Treatment Options: Biological Basis of Regenerative Endodontic Procedures

“…Finally, as active clinicians who must make real-life decisions in treating our patients, we respectfully observe that many clinical decision points will never be evaluated by randomized controlled trials (eg., randomizing patients to i.v. bisphosphonates or placebo prior to apical surgery; or randomizing patients to a retained instrument within a root canal system prior to completion of non-surgical endodontic treatment) – and yet, clinicians are still expected to use their best judgment of available evidence in caring for their patients (54, 55). Indeed, the entire concept of “level of evidence” is to use the best available evidence, and not to withhold treatment simply because the level of evidence is not ideal.…”