Appraising Evidence into our Practice

1. Appraising Evidence into our Practice

2. Objectives • Deciding the research result into practice in specific context • Interpreting/calculating Number Needed to Treat (NTT) • Interpreting pre and post test • Interpreting/calculating Number Needed to Harm (NHH)

3. Introduction • Health related research takes places over the world • Specific situation or patient where the study was taking place probably different with the current situation • Sample population characteristic ? • Standard of services ?

4. Assessing Applicability Is the quality of the Study good enough to use the result? Are the Findings Applicable in My setting? What do The result Mean for my Patient?

5. Factors to consider when assessing applicability • Characteristic of the participant: co morbidity, severity, gender • Feasibility to introduce the intervention: specialist unit, generalist unit, management system? • Think about cost and benefit • Patients preference. Forcing patient to accept the intervention is unethical.

6. Meaning the Result Study • Quality of the study design is the most important thing • Avoiding the result by chance • ℘ < 0.001. (probability by chance < 1 in 1000) • Number needed to treat (NNT) is useful for interpreting the effectiveness

7. Example Patient: Sandra, 11 y.o with 4 admission within 6 month EBP Question: Does a structured nurse-lead discharge package result reduce level of readmission in children with acute asthma? Evidence: Wisendly, C (1999) Stucture discharge procedure for childern with acute asthma: an RCT study. Journal of children nursing 4 (40):77

8. Example Result Report: Reduction in admission at 6 month. Control group: 30 of 80 Intervention group: 12 of 80 Make 2 x 2 Table

10. Calculating NNT

11. The Mean • NNT = 5 means, • 5 children need to received structured discharge package to prevent one extra child from being readmitted if they had received standard care.

12. Number Needed to Harm Patient: florence, 33, using oral contraception, smoke 20-30 cigarettes/day. Clinical question: are women who smoke with oral contraception at higher risk of myocardial infarction comparing with non smoker? Evidence: Matt, J (1999)Risk of myocardial infarction and angina in users of oral contraception. Update analysis of Cohort study. British journal of obstetric 3(90)pp1-5

13. Number Needed to Harm Result: In heavy smokers there is a fourfold in the risk of myocardial infarction if the pill of oral contraception is taken. 0,24 per 1000 women/year in heavy smoker who never used oral contraception to 1,18 per 1000 women at risk in current users of oral contraception. Heavy smoker relative risk is 4.0 for ex user of oral contraceptive pill, 4.2 for ever-user and 4.9 for current user

14. Calculating NNH

15. Calculation

16. The Mean • The number of women who smoke heavily that would have to take oral contraception for 1 year to cause one extra myocardial infarction. • In this study, a total 1063 heavy smoker would need to take oral contraception for 1 year for 1 extra women to experience a myocardial infarction.

17. Conclusion Is the quality of the Study good enough to use the result? Are the Findings Applicable in My setting? What do The result Mean for my Patient?

18. Conclusion • We know the patient • We can compare the evidence with the local situation • Cost and benefit should be consider • However, there are no perfect study as every design has they own limitation

19. Developing Guideline

20. Level of Evidence & Recomendation