According to the seminal definition by the Institute of Medicine released in 1990,
clinical guidelines represent “systematically developed statements to assist practitioner
and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances”
[
[1]
] During the last two decades, clinical guidelines have evolved into an irreplaceable
instrument for a wide population of key stakeholders, including physicians, patients,
hospitals, educational bodies, manufacturers, health providers and insurers. At present,
guidelines and recommendations provide substantial help to health professionals in
taking decisions on a daily basis. An optimal benefit is accomplished when application
of guidelines’ recommendations results in improvement of clinical outcomes. In addition,
guidelines’ recommendations are meant for ameliorating consistency of care, thereby
reducing disparities in, and increasing efficiency of diagnostic paths and therapeutic
strategies delivered in patients experiencing similar conditions. The value of guidelines
notwithstanding, it is recognized that any final decisions concerning an individual
patient should be made by the responsible health professional in consultation with
the patient and caregiver as appropriate [
[2]
]. This statement has a special significance, if one considers that: 1) many conditions
experienced in daily practice do not comply precisely with those addressed in the
guidelines; 2) high-quality studies driving guidelines recommendations do not cover
all possible variations expressed in the individual patient.To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to European Journal of Internal MedicineAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Field MJ Lohr KN Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program. National Academy Press, Washington, DC1990
- ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS.European Heart Journal. 2016; 7: 2893-2962https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehw210
- Quality of evidence underlying the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society guidelines on the management of atrial fibrillation.JAMA Cardiology. 2017; 2: 319-323https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2016.4936
- Social and geographical disparities in access to reference care site for patients with colorectal cancer in France.Br J Cancer. 2005; 92: 1842-1845
- Austrian consensus guidelines on the management and treatment of portal hypertension (Billroth III).Wien Klin Wochschr. 2017; 129: S135-S158https://doi.org/10.10007/s00508-017-1262-3
- Beyond the 2020 guidelines on atrial fibrillation of the European Society of cardiology.Eur J Inter Med. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2021.01.006
- 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio- Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): the task force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC.Eur Heart J. 2020; 42: 373-498https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa612
- Clinical classification schemes for predicting hemorrhage: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation (NRAF).American Heart J. 2006; 151: 713-719https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ahj.2005.04.017
- A new risk scheme to predict warfarin-associated hemorrhage: The ATRIA (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation) Study.Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011; 58: 395-401https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.03.031
- The ORBIT bleeding score: a simple bedside score to assess bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation.European heart journal. 2015; 36: 3258-3264https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv476
- The novel biomarker-based ABC (age, biomarkers, clinical history)-bleeding risk score for patients with atrial fibrillation: a derivation and validation study.Lancet (London, England). 2016; 387: 2302-2311https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00741-8
- Development of a contemporary bleeding risk model for elderly warfarin recipients.Chest. 2006; 130: 1390-1396https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.130.5.1390
- Comparing Bleeding Risk Assessment Focused on Modifiable Risk Factors Only Versus Validated Bleeding Risk Scores in Atrial Fibrillation.The American journal of medicine. 2018; 131: 185-192https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.09.009
- Major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage risk prediction in patients with atrial fibrillation: Attention to modifiable bleeding risk factors or use of a bleeding risk stratification score? A nationwide cohort study.International journal of cardiology. 2018; 254: 157-161https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.11.025
- Performance of the HAS-BLED high bleeding-risk category, compared to ATRIA and HEMORR2HAGES in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology: an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing. 2014; 40: 277-284https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-014-9930-y
- The HAS-BLED Score for Predicting Major Bleeding Risk in Anticoagulated Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical cardiology. 2015; 38: 555-561https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.22435
- Comparing the ORBIT and HAS-BLED bleeding risk scores in anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients: a systematic review and metaanalysis.Oncotarget. 2017; 8: 109703-109711https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.19858
- Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: The Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology.European Heart Journal. October 2010; Volume 31: 2369-2429https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehq278
- Benefit of anticoagulation unlikely in patients with atrial fibrillation and CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65 (doi.org/10-1016/j.jacc.2014.10.052): 226-232
- The 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society comprehensive guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation.Can J Cardiol. 2020; 36 (doi.org/10-1016/j.cjca.2020.09.001): 1847-1948
- Wide variation in reported rates of stroke across cohorots of patients with atrial fibrillation.Circulation. 2017; 135: 208-209
- Machina ex deo: William Harvey and the meaning of instrument.J Hist Ideas. 2000; 61: 577-593
Article info
Publication history
Published online: April 07, 2021
Accepted:
March 9,
2021
Received in revised form:
March 8,
2021
Received:
March 1,
2021
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
