Thirty years ago, the practice of medicine began a radical change of direction. As the pace of therapeutic discovery slowed in the late 1980s, many came to believe that the greatest benefit in the future might come not from innovative breakthroughs, but by the more consistent application of existing knowledge.1 If best practice could be identified by evidence from randomized clinical trials in a systematic way, and presented to clinicians as a set of recommendations, the general level of practice could be improved and assessed by objective criteria. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) became the accepted engine for medical progress, with systematic reviews and guidelines as the chosen instruments for promoting better and more standardized practice.2
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.
Mehta R, Lehman R. A Solution for Guideline Overkill—More Guidelines or Shared Understanding? JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(11):1508–1509. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3969
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: