TY - JOUR
T1 - Improving Clinical Practice Guidelines for Practicing Cardiologists
AU - The Multicenter Cardiac Research Group
AU - Benhorin, Jesaia
AU - Bodenheimer, Monty
AU - Brown, Mary
AU - Case, Robert
AU - Dwyer, Edward M.
AU - Eberly, Shirley
AU - Francis, Charles
AU - Gillespie, John A.
AU - Goldstein, Robert E.
AU - Greenberg, Henry
AU - Haigney, Mark
AU - Krone, Ronald J.
AU - Klein, Helmut
AU - Lichstein, Edgar
AU - Locati, Emanuela
AU - Marcus, Frank I.
AU - Moss, Arthur J.
AU - Oakes, David
AU - Ryan, Daniel H.
AU - Bloch Thomsen, Poul E.
AU - Zareba, Wojciech
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2015/6/15
Y1 - 2015/6/15
N2 - Cardiac-related clinical practice guidelines have become an integral part of the practice of cardiology. Unfortunately, these guidelines are often long, complex, and difficult for practicing cardiologists to use. Guidelines should be condensed and their format upgraded, so that the key messages are easier to comprehend and can be applied more readily by those involved in patient care. After presenting the historical background and describing the guideline structure, we make several recommendations to make clinical practice guidelines more user-friendly for clinical cardiologists. Our most important recommendations are that the clinical cardiology guidelines should focus exclusively on (1) class I recommendations with established benefits that are supported by randomized clinical trials and (2) class III recommendations for diagnostic or therapeutic approaches in which quality studies show no benefit or possible harm. Class II recommendations are not evidence based but reflect expert opinions related to published clinical studies, with potential for personal bias by members of the guideline committee. Class II recommendations should be published separately as "Expert Consensus Statements" or "Task Force Committee Opinions," so that both majority and minority expert opinions can be presented in a less dogmatic form than the way these recommendations currently appear in clinical practice guidelines.
AB - Cardiac-related clinical practice guidelines have become an integral part of the practice of cardiology. Unfortunately, these guidelines are often long, complex, and difficult for practicing cardiologists to use. Guidelines should be condensed and their format upgraded, so that the key messages are easier to comprehend and can be applied more readily by those involved in patient care. After presenting the historical background and describing the guideline structure, we make several recommendations to make clinical practice guidelines more user-friendly for clinical cardiologists. Our most important recommendations are that the clinical cardiology guidelines should focus exclusively on (1) class I recommendations with established benefits that are supported by randomized clinical trials and (2) class III recommendations for diagnostic or therapeutic approaches in which quality studies show no benefit or possible harm. Class II recommendations are not evidence based but reflect expert opinions related to published clinical studies, with potential for personal bias by members of the guideline committee. Class II recommendations should be published separately as "Expert Consensus Statements" or "Task Force Committee Opinions," so that both majority and minority expert opinions can be presented in a less dogmatic form than the way these recommendations currently appear in clinical practice guidelines.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930178460&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.03.026
DO - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.03.026
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 25918027
AN - SCOPUS:84930178460
SN - 0002-9149
VL - 115
SP - 1773
EP - 1776
JO - The American Journal of Cardiology
JF - The American Journal of Cardiology
IS - 12
M1 - 21064
ER -