FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2027841122> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2027841122 endingPage "526" @default.
• W2027841122 startingPage "525" @default.
• W2027841122 abstract "In the first 6 issues of the year 2000, The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry will present a series of articles offering the dental practitioner different paradigms for clinical decision making. This will not be an attempt to teach research methods or to do research. These articles are designed to help the reader determine whether information presented in the dental literature is valid and/or technically correct and whether it is applicable and usable for a specific treatment in question. As described in the book, Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine,12nd ed. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. : Little, Brown and Company, Boston1991: ix-xvGoogle Scholar the principles of evidence-based patient care were developed and designed to help clinicians become better “users” of published research with the hope that this would reduce the uncertainty associated with clinical decision making. From this origin in 1967 at the McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, the evidence-based approach to patient care has spread worldwide and is now applied to all health disciplines. In 1990 during the Proceedings: Prosthodontics 21 Symposium in Rochester, Minn., consensus was reached that fundamental improvements were needed in the quality of the prosthodontic and general dental literature. It was thought that needed changes could best be produced through the directors and teachers of Advanced Education Programs in Prosthodontics, and the editors and reviewers of the journals devoted to prosthodontics and restorative dentistry. This consensus led to the selection of 10 individuals to be trained in the evidence-based process,* critical appraisal, and methodology of clinical research at McMaster University. The individuals selected to participate in this program were as follows: Drs James D. Anderson, Alan B. Carr, David A. Felton, Gary R. Goldstein, Rhonda F. Jacob, Patrick M. Lloyd, Brien R. Lang, Glen P. McGivney, Jack D. Preston, and George A. Zarb. The predominant clinical decision-making process in many dental practices seems to have evolved from tradition-based dental education, which in turn came from “principles, concepts and practices” (PCP) based on the training and experience of educators and “clinical experts.” Many of these PCPs have been promoted as the “standard of practice.” However, variations in the opinions of these “clinical experts,” their clinical practices, and their evaluation of outcomes has not provided adequate scientific information for consistent and reliable clinical decision making. Technological innovation over the last 20 years has forced dentists to acquire new knowledge and to learn new techniques and practices just to keep up with the changes in the profession. Keeping up-to-date and determining the validity and usefulness of new products, practices, and techniques has been and will be increasingly more difficult, if not impossible. The usual approach to staying current is by taking continuing education (CE) courses and/or reading the dental literature. Both approaches require the process of evaluation to determine whether the information is valid, technically correct, and usable. These sources of information, CE courses, and published literature are sometimes misleading, because of errors in the experimental design or are biased by manufacturer controls or advertising influence. Considering the volume, scientific content, variables, bias, and time required for in-depth review of the published literature, the logical solution would be for the scientific community at large to assume the burden of establishing and generalizing evidence-based information for the practicing community. Because this is not practical at this time, the purpose of this series of articles has been designed to provide the reader with a systematic method for evaluating pertinent dental literature to determine whether the contents are valid, technically correct, and usable. The content of the series will be presented as separate articles designed to help clinicians learn how to determine what research is worth reading. The first 2 articles will provide information regarding study design and measurement issues that are helpful for determining the strength of evidence and the quality of the outcomes. These will be followed by core evidence-based articles designed to help readers determine how valid and useful articles on Diagnosis, Prognosis (probable course and outcome), Harm (whether treatment will do more harm than good), and Therapy (whether one treatment is better than another course of action) will be to their specific problem. Also presented will be the increasingly important area of Overview, which is a structured review format that uses explicit rules for conducting methodologically and rigorous reviews of the literature. January issue: I. Users guide to dental literature (Carr AB, McGivney GP) •Why is this necessary•Introduction and terminology•How to get started•Clinical scenario which brings to light the question•Evidence-based 5-step process with an explanation of where critical appraisal fits in February issue: II. Design (Jacob RF, Carr AB) •Design architecture•Types and objectives of dental research•Common designs in dentistry•Examples March issue: III. Measurement (Carr AB, McGivney GP) •Review of terminology•Scenario•Clinical measurement (methods/disagreement/error/bias)•Examiner calibration/reliability•Clinical Outcomes to measure in Dentistry April issue: IV. Diagnosis (Eckert SE, Koka S, Goldstein GR, Carr AB) •Scenario•Guidelines•The search•Results•Validity•How does this help me in treating my patients V. Prognosis (Anderson JD, Zarb GA) •Scenario•Guidelines•The search•Outcomes (instead of results?)•Validity•How does this help me in treating my patient May Issue: VI. Therapy (Goldstein GR, Preston JD) •Scenario•Guidelines•The search•Results•Validity•How does this help me in treating my patients VII. Harm (Jacob RF, Lloyd PM) •Scenario•Guidelines•The search•Results•Validity•How does this help me in treating my patients June Issue: VIII. Overview (Felton DA, Lang BR) •Scenario•How to search the literature•Assessment of the publications•Results•Validity•How does this help me treat patients? Internal reviewers for this evidence-based dentistry series were Drs Alan B. Carr, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, and Rhonda F. Jacob, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. The external reviewer was Raymond Gilbert, Professor Emeritus, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada." @default.
• W2027841122 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2027841122 creator A5022805704 @default.
• W2027841122 date "2001-06-01" @default.
• W2027841122 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2027841122 title "Editorial: Evidence-based Dentistry Article Series" @default.
• W2027841122 cites W1607190847 @default.
• W2027841122 doi "https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.116914" @default.
• W2027841122 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W2027841122 type Work @default.
• W2027841122 sameAs 2027841122 @default.
• W2027841122 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2027841122 countsByYear W20278411222017 @default.
• W2027841122 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2027841122 hasAuthorship W2027841122A5022805704 @default.
• W2027841122 hasBestOaLocation W20278411221 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C19648533 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C2776510725 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C2777614013 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C2777634892 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C127413603 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C142724271 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C15744967 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C17744445 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C19648533 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C199343813 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C199539241 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C204787440 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C2776510725 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C2777614013 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C2777634892 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C2779473830 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C509550671 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C512399662 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C55587333 @default.
• W2027841122 hasConceptScore W2027841122C71924100 @default.
• W2027841122 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2027841122 hasLocation W20278411221 @default.
• W2027841122 hasOpenAccess W2027841122 @default.
• W2027841122 hasPrimaryLocation W20278411221 @default.
• W2027841122 hasRelatedWork W1496413140 @default.
• W2027841122 hasRelatedWork W1629257299 @default.
• W2027841122 hasRelatedWork W1967027242 @default.
• W2027841122 hasRelatedWork W1967128827 @default.
• W2027841122 hasRelatedWork W1996025114 @default.
• W2027841122 hasRelatedWork W2042075811 @default.
• W2027841122 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2027841122 hasRelatedWork W2931309510 @default.
• W2027841122 hasRelatedWork W4200076617 @default.
• W2027841122 hasRelatedWork W4205532368 @default.
• W2027841122 hasVolume "85" @default.
• W2027841122 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2027841122 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2027841122 magId "2027841122" @default.
• W2027841122 workType "editorial" @default.