ここ から 除い パチンコ

。KChC
_

PDI

JlvCSC2012 NS4 7 lCSVSBjCxCCSNXkBC。dvB。KChCiC{KChCjCaEaメf]tijCi1ji4jIB

  1. i1jWI。jヲ
  2. i2j。{i
  3. i3jfE。CfE。
  4. i4jJCメメ[

{KChCC①{S。C②。C③lIEoISyC④メvCB

QDgp@

{KChCCGrfXdC{xfタzRZTXCf。タHc[pBICX。jQlCメCtH[hERZgpBC{KChCC。jヲCLO。j。@KB{KChCC{KChC。j。@ICpB

{KChCLqeCCX。C。SメACKChCCB

RD

{KChCpメCfgSSB

SD@

1jo

C2003 NKChCvWFNgC。KChCJnBKChCij]]oC2005 N7 w。KChCtp2005 NxsBC2009 N7 w。KChCtp2009 NxsBCREGFR RCgpKRAS `qKC2010 N7 w。KChCtp2010 NxsBw。KChCtp2010 NxCVKChCJnBcoC2013 N6 ]oBC2013 N7 79 JCz[y[W_fLBQlCsC2014 N1 w。KChCtp2014 NxsB

2j

{KChCCWI。je。@。jヲCe。@ZpIB

3jL@

。jASYヲCLCKvRgCRZvgpB2009 NCKChCcCc_]nclinical questioniCQjCL`ョpB2014 NC`ョpCCCQ 2010 Ns~mCCQ CEsB

4jCQ GrfXxE

CQ CLGrfXxCtLB

4-1jGrfXx

CQ _IWCCQ dAEgJX_ヲGrfXfUC1jO[vCGRADE* VXe2-21jQlxEGrfX]i\1jCIICQ GrfXxi\2jB


*GRADEFThe Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation

\1@x@EGrfX]@
1 Xebvie_]jFfUCCoCAXXN]C\^
2 XebviAEgJCfUC~_]jF

① ]FefUCQ]

  • VXe}eBbNr[QC^QCrQu]xAv
  • @QCRz[gQCP[XRg[Qu]xCv
  • WQCQu]xDv

② GrfXxvL]

  • oCAXXNirisk of biasjB
  • iinconsistencyjB
  • GrfXiindirectnessjB
  • f[^smiimprecisionjB
  • ooCAXipublication biasj\B

③ GrfXxvL]

  • CqB
  • p-zB
  • \qC^B

④ L①→②→③]IIGrfXB

\2@CQ GrfXx`
GrfXxAijF lmMB
GrfXxBijF lxmMB
^ClCタソI\B
GrfXxCijF lmMIB
^ClCタソIB
GrfXxDijF lmMB
^ClタソIB
4-2j

LAEgJGrfXxCKChCRZTXc]CB

C①GrfXmC②メnDC③vQC④RXg4 CDelphi @[]sC70v`CGrfXx[]_I]i\3jBC[`BC[Jヲ{csC`c[JC`CQ \L

\3@CQ
x  
1ij gタ{hB
gタ{hB
2ij gタ{hB
gタ{hB

TD@

12 CKvョsB

①。C②Stage 0`Stage Ⅲ 。C③Stage Ⅳ 。C④]。C⑤x]。C⑥。C⑦w@C⑧isw@C⑨ヒ@C⑩aIヒ@C⑪aC⑫pT[xCXB

OVCPubMed wGC^[lbgf[^x[XCf[^x[X2008 N1 2012 N5 p{B

4 w}SC2012 N5 eSkョoBCKvUpToDate poICc^KChCKXpB

eI \1COo8,043 iPubMed 5,305 C2,738 jCo2,917 iPubMed 2,088 C829 jfUCI2,213 SIBGrfX]C\1 x@CGrfX]@pCQ sB

UD

{KChCC4 NrKChCSgDsBC。jdeyVmmFColB

VDJ

{KChC{SfLpCqoCwz[y[WJB

2014 N1 JEFuTCgB

  • ij
  • {@\]@\T[rXiMindsjij
  • {。wij
  • Z^[Z^[ij

WD

l。[CメEtM[C2006 N1 w。KChCxoC2009 N1 w。KChCxoBTvMinds z[y[WJBu。KChC2014 Nvw。KChCxsB

XD

{KChCvxCgDxB

10Dv

1 jKChCCKChC]ゥ\vmFC\L@B

AXg[lJョミCG[UCョミC纎ョミCiHョミCIpXfBJVXeYョミCョミ@fBJCョミViW[CョミcCョミNg{ミCwHョミCRBfBG@WpョミC`ョミCOョミCQiHョミCciHョミCOョミC{C[C[ョミCmoeBX t@[}ョミCoCGiョミCt@CU[ョミCuXgE}C[YョミCNZ[mョミ

2 jv

COCCヒCa\CBCeSS[CRZTXdB

11D

1j CgcCRl: Minds fKChC2007Dw@CC2007

2j vCOqCRVC: fKChCGRADE VXeDfBACOOC2010

3j Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al; The GRADE* Working Group: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 1490-1494 printed, abridged version

4j Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al; GRADE Working Group: Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924-926

5j Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al; GRADE Working Group: Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: What isg quality of evidencehand why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008; 336: 995-998

6j Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al; GRADE Working Group: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ 2008; 336: 1106-1110

7j Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al; GRADE Working Group: Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 1170-1173

8j Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al; GRADE Working Group: Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 1049-1051

9j Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, et al; GRADE Working Group. Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. BMJ 2008; 337: a744

10j Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al: GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 383-394

11j Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al: GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 395-400

12j Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, et al: GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 401-406

13j Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al: GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitationsirisk of biasj. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 407-415

14j Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, et al: GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1277-1282

15j Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al: GRADE guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1283-1293

16j Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al; GRADE Working Group: GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1294-1302

17j Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al; GRADE Working Group. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1303-1310

18j Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al; GRADE Working Group. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1311-1316

19j Brunetti M, Shemilt I, Pregno S, et al.; GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 140-150

20j Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al: GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 151-157

21j Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, et al: GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 158-172