《evidence tables (word, . mb) - ministry of health》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《evidence tables (word, . mb) - ministry of health（368页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、EVIDENCE TABLES FOR THE NEW ZEALAND AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER GUIDELINE CONTENTS CONTENTS2 INTRODUCTION3 Method.3 Types of evidence tables .4 Levels of evidence .4 Grading 4 Practice questions6 Evidence Tables 10 EVIDENCE TABLES FOR PART 1: DIAGNOSIS AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF ASD.11 EVIDENCE TABLES F
2、OR PART 2: SUPPORT FOR INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CARERS.55 EVIDENCE TABLES FOR PART 3: EDUCATION FOR LEARNERS WITH ASD 112 EVIDENCE TABLES FOR PART 4: TREATMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF ASD 203 EVIDENCE TABLES FOR PART 5: LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY.316 EVIDENCE TABLES FOR PART 6: PROFESSIONAL LEARNING AND DEV
3、ELOPMENT.357 EVIDENCE TABLES FOR PART 7: MORI PERSPECTIVES360 EVIDENCE TABLES FOR PART 8: PACIFIC PEOPLES PERSPECTIVES.362 EVIDENCE TABLES FOR APPENDICES365 3 INTRODUCTION These evidence tables support the New Zealand Autism Spectrum Disorder Guideline. The tables are being presented to provide a tr
4、ansparent link between the strength of the available evidence and the grading of the recommendations in the ASD Guideline. Method The New Zealand ASD Guideline was originally written in individual sections by three workstreams and experienced Mori and Pacific researchers. Separate methodologies were
5、 followed by the different contributors when developing the ASD Guideline. In summary, the Assessment and Diagnosis workstream (Workstream 1) adapted the National Autism Plan for Children 2003, developed in the United Kingdom, for New Zealand circumstances for the preparation of Part 1 of the ASD Gu
6、ideline. The Education workstream (Workstream 2), the Support and Transition workstream (Workstream 3) and additional work by Workstream 1 on pharmacological interventions based the development of their sections on broad evidence-based principles. This involved the development of practice questions
7、or topics, identification and appraisal of evidence to answer the questions, development of evidence tables, and graded recommendations based on the body of evidence. The recommendations were graded according to the system used by the New Zealand Guidelines Group. Although the sections of the ASD Gu
8、ideline were originally prepared separately by the different workstreams, reflecting different areas of expertise, these sections were merged into one overall document. The contributions of the workstreams to the merged guideline are as follows: Part 1: Workstream 1 (for young children) and Workstre
9、am 3 (for young people and adults) Part 2: Workstreams 2 and 3 Part 3: Workstream 2 Part 4: Workstreams 1, 2 and 3 Part 5: Workstream 3 Part 6: Workstream 2 (in consultation with workstreams 1 and 3) The inclusion criteria for the literature searches and identification of other evidence were broad,
10、and a wide variety of different types of evidence were considered: autism-specific studies; double-blind randomised controlled trials; systematic reviews; case reports; papers of general interest on the topic; published guidelines; published reviews of relevant literature; writing from experts in th
11、e field; first person accounts from people with ASD; practice experience and expert opinion; the lived experiences of people with ASD and their parents; and policy and position papers. A detailed description of the methods used by the workstreams and further information about the guideline developme
12、nt process is provided in Appendix 1 of the ASD Guideline. The process that was followed by the Mori and Pacific 4 peoples team is described in the Mori perspectives and Pacific peoples perspectives chapters in the ASD Guideline. Types of evidence tables There are two types of evidence tables includ
13、ed in this document. Some of the evidence tables in Part 4, assessing the benefits and harms of medications, follow a strictly quantitative format, based on the study design. This format was considered unsuitable to describe the evidence for all other sections of the Guideline, which include expert
14、opinion and qualitative evidence as well as quantitative studies. Therefore, the evidence tables in Part 1, 2, 3, 4 (in part), 5, 6, 7 and 8 have a much broader and more general format to deal with the variety of evidence that has been gathered. Levels of evidence For each study selected for inclusi
15、on in the ASD Guideline, a level of evidence grade was assigned. Levels of evidence were only assigned to published studies, reports and guidelines. It was not considered appropriate to assign levels of evidence to most books and websites, as adequate information for their assessment and evaluation
16、was not always available. The level of evidence grades were based on an objective assessment of the design and quality of each study, report or guideline, as described below. Level of evidence Strong study where all or most of the validity criteria are met + Study where not all of the criteria are met but the results of the study are not likely to be affected in a major way Weak study where very few of the validity criteria are met and there is a high risk of bias x Graded recommend
