Clinical guidelines are important and influential; they can improve processes involved in patient care, thereby also improving patient outcomes [1]. They are both commonly downloaded from journal websites and highly cited [2], helping clinical decision making and service commissioning. Yet, the quality of such guidelines is highly variable; a review of 279 guidelines published between 1985 and 1997 found that overall adherence to high-quality methodological standards was less than 50% [3]. Just as Altman [4] has argued that the misuse of statistics is unethical for primary research, it is equally inappropriate for guideline documents to recommend specific practices unless developed robustly and transparently. To do otherwise risks erroneous care, and, ultimately, patient harm. Readers of guidelines (clinicians, patients and policymakers) require reassurance that these authoritative documents have identified, appraised and considered the available evidence, or draw attention to weaknesses in the literature if appropriate.
Making useful clinical guidelines: the ESGAR perspective / Plumb, A A O; Lambregts, D; Bellini, D; Stoker, J; Taylor, S. - In: EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY. - ISSN 0938-7994. - (2019). [10.1007/s00330-019-6002-9]
Making useful clinical guidelines: the ESGAR perspective
Bellini, D
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
;
2019
Abstract
Clinical guidelines are important and influential; they can improve processes involved in patient care, thereby also improving patient outcomes [1]. They are both commonly downloaded from journal websites and highly cited [2], helping clinical decision making and service commissioning. Yet, the quality of such guidelines is highly variable; a review of 279 guidelines published between 1985 and 1997 found that overall adherence to high-quality methodological standards was less than 50% [3]. Just as Altman [4] has argued that the misuse of statistics is unethical for primary research, it is equally inappropriate for guideline documents to recommend specific practices unless developed robustly and transparently. To do otherwise risks erroneous care, and, ultimately, patient harm. Readers of guidelines (clinicians, patients and policymakers) require reassurance that these authoritative documents have identified, appraised and considered the available evidence, or draw attention to weaknesses in the literature if appropriate.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Bellini_Clinical-guidelines.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza:
Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione
520.82 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
520.82 kB | Adobe PDF |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.