HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplemental data: Appendix 1 & 2 In Brief Journal Club TRACK Discussion: Submit a Comment TRACK Discussion: View Comments Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when TRACK Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hahn, D. L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Hahn, D. L. Related Collections Chronic illness Health policy Translational research Clinical practice guidelines

Importance of Evidence Grading for Guideline Implementation: The Example of Asthma

University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: David L. Hahn, MD, MS, Dean East Clinic, 1821 S. Stoughton Road, Madison, WI 53716, dlhahn{at}wisc.edu

Annals Journal Club selection—see inside back cover or http://www.annfammed.org/AJC/.

The goal of evidence-based clinical guidelines is to improve the value of health care by recommending treatments with favorable benefit/harm ratios. Achieving this goal requires use of evidence-grading systems that explicitly address strength of evidence in terms of external validity (generalizability), internal validity, and patient-oriented outcomes. To be clinically useful, guidelines should also incorporate patient preferences, particularly when evidence is weak. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute recently published Expert Panel Report 3: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma (EPR-3). This special report addresses the extent to which current guidelines adhere to the principles enunciated above by using EPR-3 as the prime example. EPR-3 used an unconventional evidence-grading system that emphasized precision and consistency (statistical significance, large sample sizes, and/or consistency of results) at the expense of patient-oriented outcomes and generalizability (applicability to the general population). EPR-3 did not report information on numbers needed to treat or numbers needed to harm, which are useful in eliciting patient preferences via shared decision making. Asthma guidelines (and others) are limited by lack of a generalizable research base, flawed evidence grading, and lack of attention to patient preferences. An evidence-grading system based on applicable populations, patient-oriented outcomes, and shared decision making might improve physician and patient guideline adherence and improve asthma outcomes.

Key Words: Asthma • clinical guidelines • evidence-based medicine

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. C. Stange Organizing Health Care for Value Ann. Fam. Med, November 1, 2009; 7(6): 559 - 561. [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. C. Stange Organizing Health Care for Value Ann. Fam. Med, September 1, 2009; 7(5): 465 - 466. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. A. Bayliss In This Issue: Systematic Strategies and Individualized Approaches to Care Ann. Fam. Med, July 1, 2009; 7(4): 290 - 291. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Annals Journal Club: Symbiosis Instead of Competing Demands: A Tale of 2 Preventive Services Ann. Fam. Med, July 1, 2009; 7(4): iii - iii. [Full Text] [PDF]

TRACK Comments: