This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Bacterial Infections  • Medical Practice  • Law and Medicine  • Quality of Care  • Quality of Care, Other  • Infectious Diseases  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

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

In Reply: Clinical practice guidelines play a central role in evidence-based medicine. By synthesizing available medical science, they can guide physicians and assist them to ensure that patients receive high-quality care while preventing the costs of treatment that provide uncertain benefit. These guidelines are, of course, only as good as the science that underlies them and the process by which they are created. Recent research shows that, when the science is disputable, practice guidelines often do not give enough attention to valid scientific dispute.¹ But it is only against the best available science that clinical practice guidelines should be measured. The IDSA guidelines appropriately synthesize scientific data on diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of Lyme disease, and the antitrust investigation that resulted from their issuance was justified by neither fact nor law.

Antitrust law is designed to prevent inappropriate restraint of trade. Case law recognizes the ability of professional organizations to . . . [Full Text of this Article]

John Kraemer, JD, MPH; Lawrence Gostin, JD
gostin@law.georgetown.edu
O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law
Georgetown University
Washington, DC

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?