4.7 Article

An Official ATS/ERSARS/ALAT Statement: Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: Evidence-based Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.2009-040GL

关键词

idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; usual interstitial pneumonia; evidence-based medicine; diagnosis; therapeutics

资金

  1. Actelion
  2. Coalition for Pulmonary Fibrosis
  3. Therapeutics
  4. Fibrogen
  5. Genzyme
  6. Gilead
  7. Nektar
  8. ASP/CHEST Foundation
  9. American Health Education
  10. Astra Zeneca
  11. Boehringer Ingelheim
  12. GlaxoSmithKline
  13. Pfizer
  14. Schering
  15. WebMD
  16. Bayer Schering Pharma
  17. Pan Pharma
  18. Biogen
  19. Novartis
  20. Neopharm
  21. Intermune
  22. Johnson Johnson
  23. Siemens
  24. Barilla
  25. World Allergy Organization
  26. American Thoracic Society
  27. European Respiratory Society
  28. Japanese Respiratory Society
  29. Latin American Thoracic Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This document is an international evidence-based guideline on the diagnosis and management of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and is a collaborative effort of the American Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, the Japanese Respiratory Society, and the Latin American Thoracic Association. It represents the current state of knowledge regarding idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), and contains sections on definition and epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, natural history, staging and prognosis, treatment, and monitoring disease course. For the diagnosis and treatment sections, pragmatic GRADE evidence-based methodology was applied in a question-based format. For each diagnosis and treatment question, the committee graded the quality of the evidence available (high, moderate, low, or very low), and made a recommendation (yes or no, strong or weak). Recommendations were based on majority vote. It is emphasized that clinicians must spend adequate time with patients to discuss patients' values and preferences and decide on the appropriate course of action.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据