To the Editor In a recently published Research Letter, Schumacher and colleagues1 argue that clinical guideline committees that make recommendations with only low-quality evidence do not promote the practice of evidence-based medicine. We feel that the authors misconstrued the role of clinical guidelines. According to the prevailing standards by the Institute of Medicine,2 committees should synthesize and rate the quality of evidence and then make recommendations using both the evidence and expert consensus. Individual frontline clinicians must then interpret the guidelines in the context of their individual patients. Guidelines are intended for the aggregate and cannot address every clinical nuance and exception.
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.
Myers LC, Bates DW. Evidence-Based Medicine and the American Thoracic Society Guidelines. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(7):1002–1003. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.1864
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: