Distinguishing ASH clinical practice guidelines from other forms of ASH clinical advice. Blood Adv 2024 Jun 11;8(11):2960-2963
Date
04/09/2024Pubmed ID
38593461Pubmed Central ID
PMC11302374DOI
10.1182/bloodadvances.2023011102Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85196395496 (requires institutional sign-in at Scopus site)Abstract
The American Society of Hematology (ASH) develops a variety of resources that provide guidance to clinicians on the diagnosis and management of blood diseases. These resources include clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and other forms of clinical advice. Although both ASH CPGs and other forms of clinical advice provide recommendations, they differ with respect to the methods underpinning their development, the principal type of recommendations they offer, their transparency and concordance with published evidence, and the time and resources required for their development. It is crucial that end users be aware of the differences between CPGs and other forms of clinical advice and that producers and publishers of these resources use clear and unambiguous terminology to facilitate their distinction. The objective of this article is to highlight the similarities and differences between ASH CPGs and other forms of ASH clinical advice and discuss the implications of these differences for end users.
Author List
Cuker A, Kunkle R, Bercovitz RS, Byrne M, Djulbegovic B, Haberichter SL, Holter-Chakrabarty J, Lottenberg R, Pai M, Rezende SM, Seftel MD, Silverstein RL, Terrell DR, Cheung MCAuthor
Roy L. Silverstein MD Professor in the Medicine department at Medical College of WisconsinMESH terms used to index this publication - Major topics in bold
HematologyHumans
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Societies, Medical
United States
