Abstract
As part of learning at the Nordic Workshop of Evidence-based Medicine, we have read with interest the practice guidelines for central venous access, published in your Journal in 2012.1 We appraised the quality of this guideline using the checklist developed by The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.2 Similar criteria for guideline quality have been suggested elsewhere.3 Our conclusion was that this much needed guideline is currently unclear about several aspects of the methodology used in developing the recommendations. This means potential users cannot be certain that the recommendations are based on best currently available evidence.
Our concerns are in two main categories: the rigor of development, including methodology of searching, evaluating, and combining the evidence; and editorial independence, including funding and possible conflicts of interest.
Our concerns are in two main categories: the rigor of development, including methodology of searching, evaluating, and combining the evidence; and editorial independence, including funding and possible conflicts of interest.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Anesthesiology |
| Volume | 119 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Pages (from-to) | 739 |
| Number of pages | 740 |
| ISSN | 0003-3022 |
| Publication status | Published - Sept 2013 |
Keywords
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences
- Guidelines, methodology