Christine Laine, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief; Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, Executive Deputy Editor; Cynthia Mulrow, MD, MSc, Senior Deputy Editor
The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.
University of Ghent, General Practice
July 5, 2011
Cultural Differences in Clinical Guidelines
Dear editor, The editorial of June 7th about trustworthy clinical guidelines rightly mentions possible concerns about guidelines but other important concerns may remain and may relate to (cultural?) differences in interpretation of the available studies.
In an international comparison of acute sore throat guidelines for example (1), six national guidelines recommend diagnostic testing and prescribing antibiotics to prevent acute rheumatic fever if a streptococcal pharyngitis is suspected, whereas four other national guidelines discourage diagnostic testing and reserve antibiotics for high- risk patients only. Hereby, each guideline may -according to the interpretation and selection of the evidence and to the IOM criteria - pretend a sufficient level of evidence and strength of recommendation.
How to unravel this tangle and trust clinical guidelines?
Guidelines deserve a bibliographic analysis with a cited evidence score, for example with number of cited intervention studies (meta- analyses) in a single guideline) / maximum possible number of unique intervention studies (meta-analyses) cited according to the publication date of the guideline (2). Evidence citation scores will allow a better assessment and comparison of guidelines and will untangle for example cultural differences (3).
Another point of discussion is how to deal with the proposal of authors to expand guideline recommendations in specific conditions, in an era in which evidence is lacking (4, 5).
1. Matthys J, De Meyere M, van Driel ML, De Sutter A. Differences among international pharyngitis guidelines: not just academic. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5:436-43.
2. Van de Velde S, Heselmans A, Donceel P, Vandekerckhove P, Ramaekers D, Aertgeerts B. Rigour of development does not AGREE with recommendations in practice guidelines on the use of ice for acute ankle sprains. BMJ Qual Saf 2011;bmjqs.2010.045435.
3.Christiaens T, De Backer D, Burgers J, Baerheim A. . Guidelines, evidence, and cultural factors. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2004;22:141-5.
4. Centor RM. Expand the pharyngitis paradigm for adolescents and young adults. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:812-5.
5. De Meyere M, Matthys J. Should we expand the pharyngitis paradigm for adolescents and young adults? Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:477-8.
Laine C, Taichman DB, Mulrow C. Trustworthy Clinical Guidelines. Ann Intern Med. ;154:774–775. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-11-201106070-00011
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(11):774-775.
Healthcare Delivery and Policy.
Results provided by:
Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use