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 Web of Science (13)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letters  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Medical Practice  • Conflict of Interest  • Medical Ethics  • Quality of Care  • Evidence-Based Medicine  • Quality of Care, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Allan D. Sniderman, MD; Curt D. Furberg, MD

JAMA. 2009;301(4):429-431.

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

Guidelines are a constructive response to the reality that the practicing physician requires assistance to assimilate and apply the exponentially expanding, often contradictory, body of medical knowledge. Guidelines are widely perceived as evidence based, not authority based, and therefore as unbiased and valid. Because they are sponsored by organizations, staffed by experts, and conducted according to apparently formal processes, the products of the exercise—the guidelines—are generally assumed to have the same level of certainty and security as conclusions generated by the conventional scientific method. For many clinicians, guidelines have become the final arbiters of care.

Guidelines have taken hold and multiplied. The National Guideline Clearinghouse has registered 2373 guidelines produced by 285 organizations.¹ Indeed, any group of individuals can designate itself a guideline group and different guideline groups have reviewed the same disease and reached different conclusions.^2-3 If the process is so . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Sources of Authority for the Guideline Process

Governance and Composition of the Guideline Committee

Unanimity in Guidelines

Lack of Independent Review

Conflict of Interest and Guidelines

Author Affiliations: Mike Rosenbloom Laboratory for Cardiovascular Research, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Canada (Dr Sniderman); and Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina (Dr Furberg).

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

RELATED LETTERS

Clinical Practice Guideline Development and Antitrust Law
Richard Wolfram
JAMA. 2009;301(24):2548-2549.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guideline Development and Antitrust Law—Reply
John Kraemer and Lawrence Gostin
JAMA. 2009;301(24):2549-2550.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Does the expert panel at the St Gallen meeting provide an unbiased opinion about the management of women with early breast cancer?
Hietanen
Ann Oncol 2009;20:1749-1751.
FULL TEXT  

Technical standards and practice guidelines: should we? Why now? Why SNIS?
Hirsch et al.
Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2009;0:jnis.2009.000679v1-jnis.2009.000679.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guideline Development and Antitrust Law--Reply
Kraemer and Gostin
JAMA 2009;301:2549-2550.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guideline Development and Antitrust Law
Wolfram
JAMA 2009;301:2548-2549.
FULL TEXT  

Professional Medical Associations and Their Relationships With Industry: A Proposal for Controlling Conflict of Interest
Rothman et al.
JAMA 2009;301:1367-1372.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Critique of Clinical Practice Guidelines
JWatch General 2009;2009:1-1.
FULL TEXT  

Reassessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines: Go Gently Into That Good Night
Shaneyfelt and Centor
JAMA 2009;301:868-869.
FULL TEXT