Nuevos materiales para hacer frente al calor y promover el consumo de frutas y verduras en verano

Boletín semanal para profesionales sanitarios de la Secretaría General de Salud Pública, Inclusión y Calidad de Vida de la Consejería de Salud y Bienestar Social

La ley de salud pública permitirá anticipar las actuaciones de prevención y promoción y afrontar nuevos riesgos emergentes

Boletín semanal para profesionales sanitarios de la Secretaría General de Salud Pública y Participación Social de la Consejería de Salud

Niveles de evidencia clínica y grados de recomendación.

An update of the levels of scientific evidence stating the varying degrees of recommendation for asymptomatic patients, indicating which procedures are most appropriate and what should be avoided all the systems described, we seek one that meets the principle of simplicity and utility. We chose for our setting the valuation of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford (OCEBM). This classification has the advantage that assures us the knowledge on each scenario, its high degree of specialization. It also has the prerogative to clarify how it affects the lack of methodological rigor to the study design, reducing its assessment not only in the grading of the evidence, but also on the strength of recommendations.

Nuevos datos sobre fibrilación auricular, observaciones al estudio OFRECE. Respuesta

We appreciate the interest shown by Vidal-Pérez et al. in our article published recently in Revista Española de Cardiología,1 which provides us with an opportunity to present some interesting additional information not included in the article itself. We agree on the importance of knowing the thromboembolic risk of the population included in the OFRECE study, both for patients with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation and for the general population. In our study, the mean (standard deviation) CHADS2 and CHAD2DS2-VASc of patients with atrial fibrillation was 2.3 (1.3) and 3.8 (1.6), respectively. In the general population, the mean (standard deviation) CHADS2 and CHAD2DS2-VASc of patients with atrial fibrillation was 0.8 (1) and 1.8 (1.5), respectively. The distribution of both scales is in agreement with that of the Val-FAAP and AFABE studies,2, 3 although the similarity is greater in the 2 population-based studies (Figure). These data are, we believe, relevant because they show that the level of risk in the population with atrial fibrillation is very similar to that of the populations included in clinical trials with new oral anticoagulants. In addition, an increasing body of evidence suggests that thromboembolic risk, as measured with these scales in the population without a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, is associated with the onset of events.