Wrong guidelines: Why and how often they occur

Primiano Iannone, Nicola Montano, Monica Minardi, James Doyle, Paolo Cavagnaro, Antonino Cartabellotta

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Evidence-based guidelines are considered an essential tool in assisting physicians, policymakers and patients when choosing among alternative care options and are considered unbiased standards of care. Unfortunately, depending on how their reliability is measured, up to 50% of guidelines can be considered untrustworthy. This carries serious consequences for patients' safety, resource use and health economics burden. Although conflict of interests, panel composition and methodological flaws are traditionally thought to be the main reasons undermining their untrustworthiness, corruption and waste of biomedical research also contribute. We discuss these issues in the hope for a wider awareness of the limits of guidelines.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-3
JournalEvidence-Based Medicine
Volume22
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Guidelines
Hope
Conflict of Interest
Health Resources
Standard of Care
Patient Safety
Biomedical Research
Economics
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Iannone, P., Montano, N., Minardi, M., Doyle, J., Cavagnaro, P., & Cartabellotta, A. (2017). Wrong guidelines: Why and how often they occur. Evidence-Based Medicine, 22(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110606

Wrong guidelines : Why and how often they occur. / Iannone, Primiano; Montano, Nicola; Minardi, Monica; Doyle, James; Cavagnaro, Paolo; Cartabellotta, Antonino.

In: Evidence-Based Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2017, p. 1-3.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Iannone, P, Montano, N, Minardi, M, Doyle, J, Cavagnaro, P & Cartabellotta, A 2017, 'Wrong guidelines: Why and how often they occur', Evidence-Based Medicine, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110606
Iannone P, Montano N, Minardi M, Doyle J, Cavagnaro P, Cartabellotta A. Wrong guidelines: Why and how often they occur. Evidence-Based Medicine. 2017;22(1):1-3. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110606
Iannone, Primiano ; Montano, Nicola ; Minardi, Monica ; Doyle, James ; Cavagnaro, Paolo ; Cartabellotta, Antonino. / Wrong guidelines : Why and how often they occur. In: Evidence-Based Medicine. 2017 ; Vol. 22, No. 1. pp. 1-3.
@article{883dbe4b0504453f936fb3c4e1f4f76c,
title = "Wrong guidelines: Why and how often they occur",
abstract = "Evidence-based guidelines are considered an essential tool in assisting physicians, policymakers and patients when choosing among alternative care options and are considered unbiased standards of care. Unfortunately, depending on how their reliability is measured, up to 50{\%} of guidelines can be considered untrustworthy. This carries serious consequences for patients' safety, resource use and health economics burden. Although conflict of interests, panel composition and methodological flaws are traditionally thought to be the main reasons undermining their untrustworthiness, corruption and waste of biomedical research also contribute. We discuss these issues in the hope for a wider awareness of the limits of guidelines.",
author = "Primiano Iannone and Nicola Montano and Monica Minardi and James Doyle and Paolo Cavagnaro and Antonino Cartabellotta",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1136/ebmed-2016-110606",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "1--3",
journal = "Evidence-Based Medicine",
issn = "1356-5524",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Wrong guidelines

T2 - Why and how often they occur

AU - Iannone, Primiano

AU - Montano, Nicola

AU - Minardi, Monica

AU - Doyle, James

AU - Cavagnaro, Paolo

AU - Cartabellotta, Antonino

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Evidence-based guidelines are considered an essential tool in assisting physicians, policymakers and patients when choosing among alternative care options and are considered unbiased standards of care. Unfortunately, depending on how their reliability is measured, up to 50% of guidelines can be considered untrustworthy. This carries serious consequences for patients' safety, resource use and health economics burden. Although conflict of interests, panel composition and methodological flaws are traditionally thought to be the main reasons undermining their untrustworthiness, corruption and waste of biomedical research also contribute. We discuss these issues in the hope for a wider awareness of the limits of guidelines.

AB - Evidence-based guidelines are considered an essential tool in assisting physicians, policymakers and patients when choosing among alternative care options and are considered unbiased standards of care. Unfortunately, depending on how their reliability is measured, up to 50% of guidelines can be considered untrustworthy. This carries serious consequences for patients' safety, resource use and health economics burden. Although conflict of interests, panel composition and methodological flaws are traditionally thought to be the main reasons undermining their untrustworthiness, corruption and waste of biomedical research also contribute. We discuss these issues in the hope for a wider awareness of the limits of guidelines.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85007248153&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85007248153&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110606

DO - 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110606

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85007248153

VL - 22

SP - 1

EP - 3

JO - Evidence-Based Medicine

JF - Evidence-Based Medicine

SN - 1356-5524

IS - 1

ER -