Clinical guidelines and the question of uncertainty

British Journal of Anaesthesia

Volumn 111, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 700-702

  Imberger, G ^a  

^a University of Copenhagen   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; FALLING; HUMAN; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PERIPHERAL VISION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; RANDOM ERROR; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84885943569     PISSN: 00070912     EISSN: 14716771     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aet166     Document Type: Editorial

References (14)

1. Popper K. The Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism. London and New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 1982
2. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: A new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 380-2
3. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 395-400
4. Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going fromevidence to recommendations: The significanceandpresentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2013
5. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 401-6
6. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC, eds. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Chichester: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011
7. Schüneman HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Chichester: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011
8. Keus F, Wetterslev J, Gluud C, van Laarhoven CJ. Evidence at a glance: Error matrix approach for overviewing available evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010; 10: 90
9. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence-study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 407-15
10. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence-publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1277-82
11. Guyatt GH,OxmanAD, Kunz R, et al. GRADEguidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1283-93
12. Guyatt GH,OxmanAD, Kunz R, et al. GRADEguidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence-inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1294-302
13. Guyatt GH,OxmanAD, Kunz R, et al. GRADEguidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence-indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1303-10
14. Guyatt GH,OxmanAD, Sultan S, et al.GRADEguidelines: 9. Ratingup the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1311-6