You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 281 No. 20, May 26, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (23)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Evidence-Based Medicine
 •Alert me on articles by topic

The Trials and Tribulations of Clinical Practice Guidelines

Deborah Cook, MD, MSc; Mita Giacomini, PhD

JAMA. 1999;281:1950-1951.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Reports critiquing the validity of randomized trials,1 meta-analyses,2 diagnostic test studies,3 and economic evaluations4 have challenged researchers to improve the conduct of their studies and have encouraged readers to interpret them carefully. The study by Shaneyfelt and colleagues5 in this issue of THE JOURNAL tackles the clinical practice guideline industry, asking fundamental questions about how well they measure up to contemporary standards. Most guidelines outlined their rationale, specified the benefits and harms of health practices, and cited their evidentiary sources. However, guidelines much less often described how the evidence was found, how its worth was judged, and how diverse sources of evidence were combined to formulate recommendations.

The metric against which clinicians might judge guidelines is complex and multidimensional. Guideline creators, consumers, and critics will recognize the challenge of developing a credible instrument for this purpose. Shaneyfelt et al have captured key features . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliations: Departments of Medicine (Dr Cook) and Clinical Epidemiology (Drs Cook and Giacomini) and the Center for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (Dr Giacomini), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. Dr Cook is a consulting editor for JAMA.


RELATED ARTICLE

Are Guidelines Following Guidelines?: The Methodological Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines in the Peer-Reviewed Medical Literature
Terrence M. Shaneyfelt, Michael F. Mayo-Smith, and Johann Rothwangl
JAMA. 1999;281(20):1900-1905.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

New grades for recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
CMAJ 2003;169:207-208.
FULL TEXT  

Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines Targeting Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Lacasse et al.
Arch Intern Med 2001;161:69-74.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1999 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.