Background: Guidelines are issued by most major organizations that focus on a specific disease entity. Guidelines should be a significant help to the practicing physician who may not be up-to-date with the recent medi...Background: Guidelines are issued by most major organizations that focus on a specific disease entity. Guidelines should be a significant help to the practicing physician who may not be up-to-date with the recent medical literature. Unfortunately, when conflicting guidelines for a specific disease are published, confusion results. Purpose: This article provides a suggested guideline outcome measure that would benefit the physician and patient. Methods: A review of 19 different guidelines for cardiovascular disease treatment is one example of the lack of specific outcomes that currently exist. The basic problem with most guidelines is that they do not state the expected end result (i.e., the benefit to the patient) if that guideline is followed. When guidelines use cardiovascular disease risk factors to dictate therapy, the end benefit is never stated so that the patient can make an appropriate choice of which (if any) guideline to follow. Results: A good example is guidelines published by the American Heart Association for reducing cardiovascular disease. These guidelines are risk factor based and only indicate that cardiovascular disease would be reduced if followed. No specific percentage in the reduction of the incidence of disease is given. In contrast, when elimination of the disease is the stated goal of the guideline, the end result is clear. To date, this goal has been stated by only one organization devoted to eliminating cardiovascular disease. Conclusion: Guidelines need to be written to provide the physician and the patient with a specific end point that is expected when the guideline is followed. Patient acceptance and compliance will be much improved if the patient knows the risk/benefit of following the guideline’s recommendations.展开更多
文摘Background: Guidelines are issued by most major organizations that focus on a specific disease entity. Guidelines should be a significant help to the practicing physician who may not be up-to-date with the recent medical literature. Unfortunately, when conflicting guidelines for a specific disease are published, confusion results. Purpose: This article provides a suggested guideline outcome measure that would benefit the physician and patient. Methods: A review of 19 different guidelines for cardiovascular disease treatment is one example of the lack of specific outcomes that currently exist. The basic problem with most guidelines is that they do not state the expected end result (i.e., the benefit to the patient) if that guideline is followed. When guidelines use cardiovascular disease risk factors to dictate therapy, the end benefit is never stated so that the patient can make an appropriate choice of which (if any) guideline to follow. Results: A good example is guidelines published by the American Heart Association for reducing cardiovascular disease. These guidelines are risk factor based and only indicate that cardiovascular disease would be reduced if followed. No specific percentage in the reduction of the incidence of disease is given. In contrast, when elimination of the disease is the stated goal of the guideline, the end result is clear. To date, this goal has been stated by only one organization devoted to eliminating cardiovascular disease. Conclusion: Guidelines need to be written to provide the physician and the patient with a specific end point that is expected when the guideline is followed. Patient acceptance and compliance will be much improved if the patient knows the risk/benefit of following the guideline’s recommendations.
