Editorial
Using guidelines for coronary revascularisation: how many are needed and are they any good?
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Gone are the days when guidelines could be ignored as cookbook medicine, the overweening influence of purchasers, or a simplistic view of the world with little value in practical patient management. Most would now accept the broad principle that it is a part of good clinical medicine to assess practice against standards linked explicitly to scientific evidence. In this issue Peters and Bredee1 discuss new guidelines from the Netherlands on coronary revascularisation and make a bold proposal for their use in practice. What sense are we to make of this among the plethora of guidelines and quality of care studies?
Guidelines: proliferation or unification?Guidelines, scarce 10 years ago, now abound; most areas of
suspected and proved coronary artery disease are now covered by one or
more guideline. In the US, aspects of the invasive management of
coronary disease are dealt with in procedure specific guidelines (on
exercise electrocardiography, coronary angiography,
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Tan, C., Treasure, T., Browne, J., Utley, M., Davies, C. W H, Hemingway, H.
(2007). Seeking consensus by formal methods: a health warning. JRSM
100: 10-14
[Full Text]
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
