Saturday, November 20, 2010
The specialty of Infectious Diseases: More art than science?
The November 15 issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases has an interesting paper that evaluates the quality of the IDSA clinical practice guielines. The authors reviewed 44 current guidelines available at the time of the study, which consisted of 4,182 component recommendations. Over half (55%) of the recommendations were based on level III evidence (expert opinion or descriptive studies), and only 15% were based on level I evidence (at least 1 randomized controlled trial). Of note, when revised guidelines were compared to their corresponding original versions, there was a 12% relative increase in recommendations backed by level I evidence, though that was only a 1.6% absolute increase. Just goes to show you that infectious diseases is still in its infancy as a specialty and the unknown remains vast. This must be why I often feel like I am flying by the seat of my pants.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
OSHA! OSHA! OSHA!
In many parts of the country, as rates of COVID-19 are declining and vaccination coverage is increasing (albeit with substantial variati...
-
Back on clinical service again and having more thoughts on poor hospital design. Last month I wondered why there were no stethoscope wipe... -
Those that follow me on twitter or the blog have probably noticed my recent focus on trying to understand the emergence of compulsory influe... -
REUTERS/Athit Perawongmetha With the assistance of a great supply management team, we have been able to outfit all of our clinical staff wit...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for submitting your comment to the Controversies blog. To reduce spam, all comments will be reviewed by the blog moderator prior to publishing. However, all legitimate comments will be published, whether they agree with or oppose the content of the post.