The Value and Limitations of Guidelines, Expert Consensus, and Registries on the Management of Patients with Thoracic Aortic Disease.
10.5090/kjtcs.2016.49.6.413
- Author:
Davide PACINI
1
;
Giacomo MURANA
;
Alessandro LEONE
;
Luca DI MARCO
;
Antonio PANTALEO
Author Information
1. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, S. Orsola Hospital, Alma Mater Studiorum—University of Bologna, Italy. davide.pacini@unibo.it
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords:
Guidelines as topic;
Consensus;
Registries;
Evidence-based practice;
Aorta
- MeSH:
Aorta;
Aortic Diseases*;
Consensus*;
Cost-Benefit Analysis;
Diagnosis;
Evidence-Based Practice;
Guidelines as Topic;
Humans;
Intention;
Patient Preference;
Registries*;
Uncertainty
- From:The Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2016;49(6):413-420
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Doctors are often faced with difficult decisions and uncertainty when patients need a certain treatment. They routinely rely on the scientific literature, in addition to their knowledge, experience, and patient preferences. Clinical practice guidelines are created with the intention of facilitating decision-making. They may offer concise instructions for the diagnosis, management (medical or surgical treatments), and prevention of specific diseases or conditions. All information included in the final version are the result of a systematic review of scientific articles and an assessment of the benefits and costs of alternative care options. The final document attempts to meet the needs of most patients in most circumstances and clinicians, aware of these recommendations, should always make individualized treatment decisions. In this review, we attempted to define the intent and applicability of clinical practice guidelines, expert consensus documents, and registry studies, focusing on the management of patients with thoracic aortic disease.
