Video: Knock on Wood| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice
fa-facebookfa-linkedinfa-youtube-playfa-rss

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Lupus Nephritis
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

The Why & What of the ACR’s Clinical Practice Guidelines

Ruth Jessen Hickman, MD  |  Issue: February 2018  |  February 18, 2018

Dr. Caplan critiques the authors’ approach, explaining that they appear to have used the rating of evidence according to GRADE and back converted into the older ACC/AHA scheme. “But the two are not exactly the same, so they had to make a lot of assumptions, and it’s not exactly clear how they made those assumptions. That’s one issue.” However, he agrees with the general assessment that the guidelines are not predominantly supported by level A evidence (meaning RCTs). Dr. Caplan is coauthoring a response letter to the paper in JAMA Internal Medicine in collaboration with the current chair of the ACR Quality of Care Committee, John Fitzgerald, MD, PhD.

“These findings aren’t terribly surprising, and I don’t think they are unique to rheumatology, given a small discipline that is underfunded,” says Dr. Caplan. He points out that to conduct RCTs to address many of the questions included in guidelines would require immense amounts of funding that is often not available. He also notes it would be ethically challenging to pursue certain questions because existing effective medications might preclude a comparison with placebo, and thus only head-to-head data between agents are available.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Dr. Caplan also makes it clear that it is important to distinguish limits to the evidence base due to the state of the science from actual flaws in the guidelines themselves. “It’s not that the guidelines are flawed per se; it’s simply that they are the best available product for addressing the issue based on the limited evidence that is available. I would call a guideline flawed if it doesn’t adhere to a process or purports to make decision making in one way but really allows undue influence from pharma or allows votes in an inequitable manner. There are ways that guidelines can be flawed, but to call them flawed because the evidence base on which they’re established is limited is misleading.”

Unlike the ACC/AHA categorization of evidence used in the JAMA analysis, GRADE takes into account study quality when analyzing recommendations. Dr. Neogi points out that although RCTs provide the gold standard of evidence, they may have bias or other issues that can downgrade evidence quality. “On the other hand, a very well done observational study, a cohort study done very rigorously could be considered a slightly higher level of evidence because it dealt with all the different biases and nuances to make it more robust evidence. And the strength of the recommendation takes all that into consideration.” In other words, a trial that might technically qualify as level A evidence might not actually be as reliable as data from a study ranked as level B evidence under the ACA/AHA scheme.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:Practice Support Tagged with:Clinical Practice GuidelinesThe American College of Rheumatology

Related Articles
    Dr. Caplan turned 106 on Nov. 21 and remains physically and mentally active.

    Paul S. Caplan, MD: A Physician’s Journey

    March 8, 2020

    Editor’s note: It is with much sadness that we learned this morning that Paul Caplan, MD, passed away yesterday, March 7, 2020. “He was a remarkable person who continued to celebrate life up to the end,” says Terence W. Starz, MD, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. “He had a great caring, wisdom, and commitment…

    Alisusha; Trueffelpix / shutterstock.com

    3 New Vasculitis Guidelines Discussed

    May 13, 2021

    The ACR, in concert with the Vasculitis Foundation, released three new vasculitis guidelines online first in July, with a fourth slated for publication by the end of the year. These are the first ever to be produced and endorsed by the ACR and the Vasculitis Foundation. Although most of the recommendations are conditional, due to…

    Vasculitis Guidelines in Focus, Part 6: Giant Cell Arteritis

    September 27, 2022

    In 2021, the ACR—in concert with the Vasculitis Foundation (VF)—released four new vasculitis guidelines, one each on: 1) anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) associated vasculitis, 2) giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu arteritis, 3) polyarteritis nodosa and 4) Kawasaki disease. The guideline development process is complex. For the vasculitis guidelines, this process kicked off in June…

    Updated Perioperative Guideline Released: Recommendations Balance Risks of Infection & Disease Flare

    September 13, 2022

    The 2017 recommendations are updated to reflect changes in medical literature, as well as to include newly approved drugs.

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
fa-facebookfa-linkedinfa-youtube-playfa-rss
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences