The shortcomings of clinical practice guidelines

Abstract

Accumulation of medical knowledge related to diagnosis and management over the last 5-6 decades has altered the course of diseases, improved clinical outcomes and increased survival. Thus, it has become difficult for the practicing physician to evaluate the long-term effects of a particular therapy on survival of an individual patient. Further, the approach by each physician to an individual patient with the same disease is not always uniform. In an attempt to assist physicians in applying newly acquired knowledge to patients, clinical practice guidelines were introduced by various scientific societies. Guidelines assist in facilitating the translation of new research discoveries into clinical practice; however, despite the improvements over the years, there are still several issues related to guidelines that often appear 'lost in translation'. Guidelines are based on the results of randomized clinical trials, other nonrandomized studies, and expert opinion (i.e. the opinion of most members of the guideline committees). The merits and limitations of randomized clinical trials, guideline committees, and presentation of guidelines will be discussed. In addition, proposals to improve guidelines will be presented.