Premium
Commentary on the role of expert opinion in developing evidence‐based guidelines
Author(s) -
Eibling David,
Fried Marvin,
Blitzer Andrew,
Postma Gregory
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
the laryngoscope
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.181
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1531-4995
pISSN - 0023-852X
DOI - 10.1002/lary.24175
Subject(s) - expert opinion , evidence based practice , process (computing) , best evidence , evidence based medicine , psychology , computer science , medicine , data science , medical education , alternative medicine , intensive care medicine , pathology , operating system
Evidence‐based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) help guide busy practitioners in clinical decision making. CPGs are evidence‐based in that recommendations are based on available knowledge derived from published clinical trials. The challenges presented by the tasks of finding, assessing, interpreting, and assembling the information in these reports are herculean. Missing or imperfect evidence may lead to the publication of suboptimal guidelines, even when the other components of the development process have been flawlessly performed. This commentary highlights the requirement that expert opinion must be explicitly recognized by CPG authoring groups when the published evidence is missing or inadequate. Laryngoscope , 124:355–357, 2014