Rhetoric and argumentation: how clinical practice guidelines think

Clinical practice guidelines ( CPGs ) are an important source of justification for clinical decisions in modern evidence‐based practice. Yet, we have given little attention to how they argue their evidence. In particular, how do CPGs argue for treatment with long‐term medications that are increasingly prescribed to older patients? Approach and rationale I selected six disease‐specific guidelines recommending treatment with five of the medication classes most commonly prescribed for seniors in O ntario, C anada. I considered the stated aims of these CPGs and the techniques employed towards those aims. Finally, I reconstructed and logically analysed the arguments supporting recommendations for pharmacotherapy. Analysis The primary function of CPGs is rhetorical, or persuasive, and their means of persuasion include both a display of their credibility and their argumentation. Arguments supporting pharmacotherapy recommendations for the target population follow a common inductive pattern: statistical generalization from randomized controlled trial ( RCT ) and meta‐analysis evidence. Two of the CPGs also argue their treatment recommendations for older patients in this style, while three fail to justify pharmacotherapy specifically for the older population. Discussion The arguments analysed lack the auxiliary assumptions that would warrant making a generalization about the clinical effectiveness of medications for the older population. Guidelines reason using simple induction, while ignoring important inferential gaps. Future guidelines should aspire to be well‐reasoned rather than simply evidence‐based; argue from a plurality of evidence; be wary of hasty inductions; appropriately limit the scope of their recommendations; and avoid making law‐like, prescriptive generalizations.