There are innumerable organizations advising doctors with clinical guidelines.
But who ensures the standards behind the recommendations? It’s somewhat concerning to read the lack of evidence-based rigor behind many policy recommendations. For instance, the American Academy of Pediatrics admits that “academy standards did not require any systematic overview of the scientific literature before a policy was issued.”
Indeed, JAMA reported that “only about a third of clinical guidelines reviewed current medical evidence. Fewer than half followed any kind of standard format.”
Doctors are implored to follow evidence-based clinical guidelines to reduce practice variability. But with the rash of conflicting recommendations, do we need guidelines for the guidelines?
Related posts:
- Should doctors who follow evidence-based guidelines be offered liability protection?
- A cost effectiveness institute
- Nancy Snyderman: Is she aware of any evidence-based guidelines?
- Routine screening test recommendations, and how newspapers often get it wrong
- Do doctors already have a source of comparative effectiveness research?
- The race to set definitive guidelines
- Pneumonia guidelines
{ 2 comments }
“Clinical Guideline” is just sales language used to try to con, bully or trick people in doing what someone wants them to do. It is no indication that it is the right thing to do and a lot of guidelines are promotional schemes for special interests.
Before it was killed by the Board of AAOS we had the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research…. Possibly more important Bishop et al showed how general practitioners are slow and reluctant to incorporate evidence based guidelines into practice.
Comments on this entry are closed.