Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2008;336:1370-1371 (14 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.a240
David Isaacs, professor of paediatric infectious diseases1,2
1 Department of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Childrens Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia , 2 University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006
davidi@chw.edu.au
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
It is a moot point whether clinical practice guidelines are of more value if the evidence is strong, rather than weak. Guidelines based on strong evidence may simply reinforce existing knowledge. On the other hand, guidelines based on weak evidence may reassure the clinician, but be of questionable value to the patient. The authors of the guidelines from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) claim to be the first to systematically scrutinise the literature to produce evidence based guidelines on recognition and management of meningococcal disease in children, while admitting elsewhere that their task was hampered by a lack of high quality evidence. Any guidelines are only of value if they improve care. With meningococcal infection this means improving mortality and morbidity, which are readily measurable.
A major controversy in childhood meningococcal infection is that the improvement in outcome in UK specialist centres (the case fatality rate at one paediatric
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?