Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T05:22:57.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

42 - Evidence-Based Medicine

from Section 6 - General Considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2018

Lisa Keder
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Martin E. Olsen
Affiliation:
East Tennessee State University
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Gynecologic Care , pp. 402 - 410
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Sackett, D. L. R., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996;Jan 13;312(7023):71–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, B. K., Melnikow, J., Slee, C. A. et al. Posttreatment human papillomavirus testing for recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review. AJOG 2009;200(4):422 e1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vesco, K. K., Whitlock, E. P., Eder, M. et al. Screening for cervical cancer: a systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 86. AHRQ Publication No. 11-05156-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2011;May.Google Scholar
Bent, S., Nallamothu, B. K., Simel, D. L. et al. Does this woman have an acute uncomplicated urinary tract infection? JAMA Intern Med. 2002;287(20):2701–10.Google Scholar
Turner, D., Little, P., Raftery, J., Turner, S. et al. Cost effectiveness of management strategies for urinary tract infections: results from randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;340:c346.Google Scholar
Peipert, J. F., Bracken, M. B.. Systematic reviews of medical evidence: the use of meta-analysis in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):628–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sawaya, G. F., Guirguis-Blake, J., LeFevre, M. et al. Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: estimating certainty and magnitude of net benefit. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(12):871–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agency for Health Care Quality and Research. The Electronic Preventive Services Selector. Accessed at http://epss.ahrq.gov/PDA/index.jsp on February 25, 2016.Google Scholar
Petitti, D. B., Teutsch, S. M., Barton, M. B. et al. Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: insufficient evidence. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(3):199205.Google Scholar
Smaill, F. M., Grivell, R. M.. Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection after cesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;10:CD007482.Google Scholar
Moyer, V. A.. Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(12):880–91, W312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sawaya, G. F., Kulasingam, S., Denberg, T. D. et al. Cervical cancer screening in average-risk women: best practice advice from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(12):851–9.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. L., Heidenreich, P. A., Barnett, P. G. et al. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(21):2304–22.Google Scholar
Sawaya, G. F., Smith-McCune, K.. Cervical ccancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; Mar;127(3):459–67.Google Scholar
Sawaya, G. F., Kuppermann, M.. Identifying a “range of reasonable options” for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(2):308–10.Google Scholar
Kuppermann, M., Sawaya, G. F.. Shared decision-making: easy to evoke, challenging to implement. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(2):167–8.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×