Cartwright, N. (2018) 'What evidence should guidelines take note of?', Journal of evaluation in clinical practice., 24 (5). pp. 1139-1144.
The Guidelines Challenge Conference on which this special issue builds asked as the first of its “further relevant questions”: “How do we incorporate more types of causally relevant information in guidelines?” This paper first supports the presupposition of this question—that we need further kinds of evidence—by pointing out that the randomized controlled trial, touted as the best source of evidence on effectiveness, can do so little for us. Second, it outlines a number of other good ways to learn what will work that the medical community, and much of the public health community, is not making much use of.
|Full text:||(AM) Accepted Manuscript|
First Live Deposit - 08 May 2018
Download PDF (1024Kb)
|Publisher Web site:||https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12959|
|Publisher statement:||This is the accepted version of the following article: Cartwright, N. (2018). What evidence should guidelines take note of? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 24(5): 1139-1144, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12959. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.|
|Record Created:||08 May 2018 16:13|
|Last Modified:||07 Jun 2019 10:25|
|Social bookmarking:||Export: EndNote, Zotero | BibTex|
|Look up in GoogleScholar | Find in a UK Library|