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 (26)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Quality of Care  • Evidence-Based Medicine  • Quality of Care, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

The Balance Between Rigor and Pragmatism

George P. Browman, MD

JAMA. 2001;286:1509-1511.

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

As health care technologies, evidence-based practice, and clinical guidelines continue to evolve, so does understanding of their limitations.^1-3 The emphasis of the debate regarding evidence-based guidelines recently has shifted from the what to the how.⁴ Formal evaluations of guideline quality have called for improvements in their development.⁵ Guideline development represents an alloy of evidence, expert opinion, and the views and opinions of other stakeholders.⁶

The evidence-based method for guideline development is illustrated most compellingly and concretely through the fundamental difference in credibility (face validity) between the systematic review, which is at the heart of any evidence-based guideline, and the less rigorous narrative review of a body of scientific evidence.⁷ Accessing and analyzing evidence is the most expensive and time-consuming aspect of many evidence-based guideline development processes. The rigorous demands of the systematic review often cause guideline developers to revert to consensus- or expert-based models (eg, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliation: McMaster University and the Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, and Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto.

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

RELATED ARTICLE

Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Clinical Practice Guidelines: How Quickly Do Guidelines Become Outdated?
Paul G. Shekelle, Eduardo Ortiz, Shannon Rhodes, Sally C. Morton, Martin P. Eccles, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, and Steven H. Woolf
JAMA. 2001;286(12):1461-1467.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Surgeon Characteristics and Variations in Treatment for Early-Stage Breast Cancer
Gilligan et al.
Arch Surg 2007;142:17-22.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

American Psychiatric Association Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders Compendium 2006
Glass
JAMA 2006;296:2620-2621.
FULL TEXT  

From outdated to updated, keeping clinical guidelines valid
Clark et al.
Int J Qual Health Care 2006;18:165-166.
FULL TEXT  

Introduction
Culleton
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2006;17:S1-S3.
FULL TEXT  

Development of a set of strategy-based system-level cancer care performance indicators in Ontario, Canada
Greenberg et al.
Int J Qual Health Care 2005;17:107-114.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Four Cornerstones of Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work
Gilgun
Research on Social Work Practice 2005;15:52-61.
ABSTRACT  

Assessing the need to update prevention guidelines: a comparison of two methods
Gartlehner et al.
Int J Qual Health Care 2004;16:399-406.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Towards evidence-based clinical practice: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs
BURGERS et al.
Int J Qual Health Care 2003;15:31-45.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Updating guidelines on stable angina
Lancaster and Moher
BMJ 2001;323:1202-1202.
FULL TEXT