title: Guidelines or gospels?
abstract: In the interest of advancing evidenced-based medicine, enthusiasm for clinical practice guidelines has skyrocketed. They have a genuine impact on clinical practice and are frequently referenced in the literature. Their construction is complex and labor intensive, and has significant limitations given the necessary process as well as the data available. There has been less focus on their appropriate clinical application as dictated by these inherent limitations. It is worthwhile taking a step back and considering how we know what we think we know based on statistical analysis of biomedical data sets and the real implications of those population data for making predictions about the individual patient we encounter in the clinic. These data as used to establish guidelines for care should be the foundation and starting point for our thoughtful recommendations and decision making, not the final word. The importance of nuance in clinical judgment remains even in this "evidence-based" world.
authors.affiliation: Division of Cardiac Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Electronic address: tsundt@mgh.harvard.edu.
authors.forename: Thoralf M
authors.initials: TM
authors.lastname: Sundt
mesh_terms: D000066491:Clinical Decision-Making / Q000941:ethics / Q000379:methods*; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine / Q000941:ethics / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D019983:Guideline Adherence / Q000941:ethics* / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic
keywords: evidence-based medicine; guidelines; randomized trial