Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
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.
Schumacher RC, Nguyen OK, Deshpande K, Makam AN. Evidence-Based Medicine and the American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guidelines. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(4):584–586. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7461
The American Thoracic Society (ATS) issues clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with pulmonary and critical care disease. The utility of ATS guidelines depends on the quality of the evidence base underpinning recommendations and whether the guidelines permit the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM).1,2 However, the extent to which ATS guidelines are substantiated by high-quality evidence and can be used to promote EBM is unknown.
Two of 3 investigators (R.C.S., K.D., and A.N.M.) reviewed each ATS clinical practice guideline recommendations listed on the ATS website as of August 1, 2017, that pertained to adults.3 We abstracted the following domains necessary for evidence-based clinical decision making based on prior conceptual frameworks1,2: recommendation type, recommendation strength (using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE] scoring system4 of strong [benefits clearly outweigh risks in most patients] vs low/conditional [benefits do not clearly outweigh risks in a substantial minority of patients]), quality of evidence (using GRADE categories4 of high [further research is unlikely to change estimate of effect] to very low [any estimate of effect is uncertain]), EBM measures, and patient context. Institutional review board approval was not needed because no human participants were included.
Create a personal account or sign in to: