5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      De vuelta a la clínica: sin justificación no existe pregunta de investigación que valga

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Resumen La formulación de una pregunta de investigación clínica requiere la concurrencia de experiencia clínica y conocimiento en metodología y estadística. Inicialmente, la pregunta de investigación debe contar con una estructura que deje claro qué se busca (consecuencia o desenlace), en quién (estado basal) y por acción de qué (maniobra). Posteriormente, su argumentación debe explorar cuatro aspectos: factibilidad y sensatez del cuestionamiento, ausencia de respuesta previa, relevancia de la respuesta a obtener y aplicabilidad. Una vez que estos aspectos han sido cubiertos en forma satisfactoria puede considerarse que la pregunta es “clínicamente relevante”, que es diferente a significancia estadística (la probabilidad de que el resultado se deba al azar y que no refleja la relevancia de la pregunta ni de los resultados). Nunca se debe olvidar que toda maniobra conlleva eventos adversos, que cuando son graves demeritan los buenos resultados. Es imperativo estimar la posible respuesta desde la estructura de la pregunta; la función de la investigación clínica es corroborar o rechazar una hipótesis, no probar empíricamente para ver qué resulta.

          Translated abstract

          Abstract A clinical research question requires the concurrence of clinical experience and knowledge on methodology and statistics in that who formulates it. Initially, a research question should have a structure that clearly establishes what is that which is being sought (consequence or outcome), in whom (baseline status), and by action of what (maneuver). Subsequently, its reasoning must explore four aspects: feasibility and reasonableness of the questioning, lack of a prior answer, relevance of the answer to be obtained, and applicability. Once these aspects are satisfactorily covered, the question can be regarded as being “clinically relevant”, which is different from being statistically significant, which refers to the probability of the result being driven by chance, which does not reflect the relevance of the question or the outcome. One should never forget that every maneuver entails adverse events that, when serious, discredit good results. It is imperative to have the possible answer estimated from within the structure of the question. The function of clinical research is to corroborate or reject a hypothesis, rather than to empirically test to find out what the outcome is.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease Using Risk Factor Categories

          The objective of this study was to examine the association of Joint National Committee (JNC-V) blood pressure and National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) cholesterol categories with coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, to incorporate them into coronary prediction algorithms, and to compare the discrimination properties of this approach with other noncategorical prediction functions. This work was designed as a prospective, single-center study in the setting of a community-based cohort. The patients were 2489 men and 2856 women 30 to 74 years old at baseline with 12 years of follow-up. During the 12 years of follow-up, a total of 383 men and 227 women developed CHD, which was significantly associated with categories of blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol (all P or =130/85). The corresponding multivariable-adjusted attributable risk percent associated with elevated total cholesterol (> or =200 mg/dL) was 27% in men and 34% in women. Recommended guidelines of blood pressure, total cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol effectively predict CHD risk in a middle-aged white population sample. A simple coronary disease prediction algorithm was developed using categorical variables, which allows physicians to predict multivariate CHD risk in patients without overt CHD.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes.

            Epidemiologic studies have shown a relationship between glycated hemoglobin levels and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. We investigated whether intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels would reduce cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors. In this randomized study, 10,251 patients (mean age, 62.2 years) with a median glycated hemoglobin level of 8.1% were assigned to receive intensive therapy (targeting a glycated hemoglobin level below 6.0%) or standard therapy (targeting a level from 7.0 to 7.9%). Of these patients, 38% were women, and 35% had had a previous cardiovascular event. The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The finding of higher mortality in the intensive-therapy group led to a discontinuation of intensive therapy after a mean of 3.5 years of follow-up. At 1 year, stable median glycated hemoglobin levels of 6.4% and 7.5% were achieved in the intensive-therapy group and the standard-therapy group, respectively. During follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 352 patients in the intensive-therapy group, as compared with 371 in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P=0.16). At the same time, 257 patients in the intensive-therapy group died, as compared with 203 patients in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.46; P=0.04). Hypoglycemia requiring assistance and weight gain of more than 10 kg were more frequent in the intensive-therapy group (P<0.001). As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels for 3.5 years increased mortality and did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events. These findings identify a previously unrecognized harm of intensive glucose lowering in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.) 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein.

              Increased levels of the inflammatory biomarker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein predict cardiovascular events. Since statins lower levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein as well as cholesterol, we hypothesized that people with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels but without hyperlipidemia might benefit from statin treatment. We randomly assigned 17,802 apparently healthy men and women with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of less than 130 mg per deciliter (3.4 mmol per liter) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels of 2.0 mg per liter or higher to rosuvastatin, 20 mg daily, or placebo and followed them for the occurrence of the combined primary end point of myocardial infarction, stroke, arterial revascularization, hospitalization for unstable angina, or death from cardiovascular causes. The trial was stopped after a median follow-up of 1.9 years (maximum, 5.0). Rosuvastatin reduced LDL cholesterol levels by 50% and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels by 37%. The rates of the primary end point were 0.77 and 1.36 per 100 person-years of follow-up in the rosuvastatin and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio for rosuvastatin, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.69; P<0.00001), with corresponding rates of 0.17 and 0.37 for myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.70; P=0.0002), 0.18 and 0.34 for stroke (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.79; P=0.002), 0.41 and 0.77 for revascularization or unstable angina (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.70; P<0.00001), 0.45 and 0.85 for the combined end point of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.69; P<0.00001), and 1.00 and 1.25 for death from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.97; P=0.02). Consistent effects were observed in all subgroups evaluated. The rosuvastatin group did not have a significant increase in myopathy or cancer but did have a higher incidence of physician-reported diabetes. In this trial of apparently healthy persons without hyperlipidemia but with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels, rosuvastatin significantly reduced the incidence of major cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00239681.) 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                gmm
                Gaceta médica de México
                Gac. Méd. Méx
                Academia Nacional de Medicina de México A.C. (Ciudad de México, Ciudad de México, Mexico )
                0016-3813
                2696-1288
                April 2019
                : 155
                : 2
                : 168-175
                Affiliations
                [2] Ciudad de México orgnameInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social orgdiv1Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI Mexico
                [3] Ciudad de México orgnameSecretaría de Salud orgdiv1Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría “Dr. Ramón de la Fuente” México
                [1] Ciudad de México orgnameCentro Médico ABC orgdiv1Dirección de Enseñanza e Investigación México
                Article
                S0016-38132019000200168 S0016-3813(19)15500200168
                10.24875/gmm.19004942
                7446752
                31056591
                0c4ec142-f412-48db-ab79-112a8ec239c3

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 16 January 2019
                : 21 December 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 48, Pages: 8
                Product

                SciELO Mexico

                Categories
                Artículos de revisión

                Justificación,Clinical research question,Justification,Relevancia,Pregunta de investigación clínica,Relevance

                Comments

                Comment on this article