Guiding clinical care through evidence-free zones

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Volumn 51, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1157-1159

  Deresinski, Stan ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL STUDY; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; NOTE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC;

EID: 78349240102     PISSN: 10584838     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/656736     Document Type: Note

References (14)

1. Khan AR, Khan S, Zimmerman V, et al. The quality and strength of evidence of the Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 50(10):1147-1156 (in this issue).
2. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336:924-926. (Pubitemid 351632017)
3. File T. Guiding in the face of minimal evidence: a strength, not a weakness, of graded clinical practice guidelines. Infect Dis Clin Pract 2010; 18:151.
4. Spellberg B, Talbot G; Infectious Diseases Society of America; American College of Chest Physicians; American Thoracic Society; Society of Critical Care Medicine. Recommended design features of future clinical trials of antibacterial agents for hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51(Suppl 1):S150-S170.
5. Infectious Diseases Society of America's (IDSA) testimony concerning fiscal year 2011 funding at the Food and Drug Administration submitted to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies. 19 March 2010. http://www.idsociety. org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?idp16261. Accessed 12 October 2010.
6. US Senate, Committee on Appropriations. Senate Report 111-243, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2011; 111th Congress, 2nd Session; 2 August 2010. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbnamep111-cong- reports&docidpf:sr243.111.pdf. Accessed 12 October 2010.
7. US Senate; Committee on Appropriations; Senate Report 111-221, Departments of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Relate Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2011; 111th Congress, 2nd Session; 15 July 2010. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbnamep111-cong- reports&docidpf:sr221.111.pdf. Accessed 12 October 2010.
8. Kaiser J. Health bill backs evidence-based medicine, new drug studies. Science 2010; 327:1562.
9. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009.
10. Tanenbaum SJ. Comparative effectiveness research: evidence-based medicine meets health reform in the USA. J Eval Clin Pract 2009; 15:976-984.
11. Sox HC. Comparative effectiveness research: a progress report. Ann Intern Med2010 [Epub ahead of print].
12. Wachter RM, Flanders SA, Fee C, Pronovost PJ. Public reporting of antibiotic timing in patients with pneumonia: lessons from a flawed performance measure. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149:29-32. (Pubitemid 351931130)
13. McNutt RA, Livingston EH. Evidence-based medicine requires appropriate clinical context. JAMA 2010; 303:454-455.
14. Hirsh J, Guyatt G. Clinical experts or methodologists to write clinical guidelines? Lancet 2009; 374:351-352.