ブックタイトルカテーテル関連尿路感染の予防のためのCDCガイドライン 2009｜株式会社メディコン

概要

カテーテル関連尿路感染の予防のためのCDCガイドライン 2009｜株式会社メディコン

Category I recommendations are defined as strong recommendations with the followingimplications:1. For patients: Most people in the patient’s situation would want the recommended course ofaction and only a small proportion would not; request discussion if the intervention is notoffered.2. For clinicians: Most patients should receive the recommended course of action.3. For policymakers: The recommendation may be adopted as a policy.Category II recommendations are defined as weak recommendations with the followingimplications:1. For patients: Most people in the patient’s situation would want the recommended course ofaction, but many would not.2. For clinicians: Different choices will be appropriate for different patients, and clinicians musthelp each patient to arrive at a management decision consistent with her or his values andpreferences.3. For policymakers: Policy making will require substantial debate and involvement of manystakeholders.It should be noted that Category II recommendations are discretionary for the individual institutionand are not intended to be enforced.The wording of each recommendation was carefully selected to reflect the recommendation’sstrength. In most cases, we used the active voice when writing Category I recommendations -the strong recommendations. Phrases like "do" or "do not" and verbs without auxiliaries orconditionals were used to convey certainty. We used a more passive voice when writingCategory II recommendations - the weak recommendations. Words like "consider” and phraseslike "is preferable,”“is suggested,”“is not suggested,” or “is not recommended” were chosen toreflect the lesser certainty of the Category II recommendations. Rather than a simple statement offact, each recommendation is actionable, describing precisely a proposed action to take.The category "No recommendation/unresolved issue" was most commonly applied to situationswhere either 1) the overall quality of the evidence base for a given intervention was low to verylow and there was no consensus on the benefit of the intervention or 2) there was no publishedevidence on outcomes deemed critical to weighing the risks and benefits of a given intervention.If the latter was the case, those critical outcomes will be noted at the end of the relevant evidencesummary.Our evidence-based recommendations were cross-checked with those from guidelines identifiedin our original systematic search. Recommendations from previous guidelines for topics notdirectly addressed by our systematic review of the evidence were included in our "Summary ofRecommendations" if they were deemed critical to the target users of this guideline. Unlikerecommendations informed by our literature search, these recommendations are not linked to akey question. These recommendations were agreed upon by expert consensus and aredesignated either IB if they represent a strong recommendation based on accepted practices(e.g., aseptic technique) or II if they are a suggestion based on a probable net benefit despitelimited evidence.All recommendations were approved by HICPAC. Recommendations focused only on efficacy,effectiveness, and safety. The optimal use of these guidelines should include a consideration ofthe costs relevant to the local setting of guideline users.< 原文 > VII. Methods81