Clinical practice guidelines have become increasingly prominent in clinical medicine over the last 4 decades, and represent one of the most important tools for potentially improving clinical decision-making and, in turn, potentially improving patients’ outcomes.1
Historically, many organizations categorized their guidelines as evidence-based or consensus-based and some organizations, including some of the largest professional organizations devoted to developing clinical practice guidelines for the management of heart disease (the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association) and the largest organization devoted to cancer (the American Society of Clinical Oncology), continue to make this distinction.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Djulbegovic B, Guyatt G. Evidence vs Consensus in Clinical Practice Guidelines. JAMA. Published online July 19, 2019322(8):725–726. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.9751
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: