corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 8260

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Steinbrook R.
Guidance for guidelines.
N Engl J Med 2007 Jan 25; 356:(4):331-3
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/4/331


Abstract:

Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements that aim to help physicians and patients reach the best health care decisions. Good guidelines have many attributes, including validity, reliability, reproducibility, clinical applicability and flexibility, clarity, development through a multidisciplinary process, scheduled reviews, and documentation.1 More than 2000 guidelines are currently represented in the National Guideline Clearinghouse (www.guideline.gov). Medical specialty societies are their most common sponsors.

Guidelines rely on both evidence and opinion; they are neither infallible nor a substitute for clinical judgment. They do, however, go beyond systematic reviews to recommend what should and should not be done . . .

Keywords:
MeSH Terms: Advisory Committees* Conflict of Interest*/economics Drug Industry/economics Financial Support Humans Practice Guidelines/standards* United States

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963