Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Next Frontier: Quantifying Risks for Interventions With No End in Sight—Reply

The Next Frontier: Quantifying Risks for Interventions With No End in Sight—Reply In reply We strongly agree that creating a decision support tool is important to help physicians prioritize interventions when caring for patients with multiple chronic conditions. Indeed, we have a parallel stream of ongoing work directly aligned with this goal.1 We view prioritization as complementary to the payoff time framework, however, rather than as a substitute for assessing individual guidelines. Many guidelines, particularly involving cancer screening, involve downstream benefits but up-front harms (eg, from the tests themselves, and from the management of false-positive results), yet the guidelines are frequently applied to patients with substantial comorbidity. The payoff time approach can be used to deemphasize these recommendations, when appropriate, and the remaining guidelines could be prioritized using a systematic approach based on magnitude of benefit. Correspondence: Dr Braithwaite, Section of General Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, West Haven Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, VACS 11 ACSL-G, 950 Campbell Ave, West Haven, CT 06516 (Ronald.Braithwaite@va.gov). References 1. Dalal MBradley EBraithwaite RS Prioritizing clinical practice guidelines in the primary care setting. Paper presented at: the 29th Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making October 23, 2007 Pittsburgh, PA http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Internal Medicine American Medical Association

The Next Frontier: Quantifying Risks for Interventions With No End in Sight—Reply

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/the-next-frontier-quantifying-risks-for-interventions-with-no-end-in-HoAlrUufCz

References (1)

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0003-9926
eISSN
1538-3679
DOI
10.1001/archinte.168.11.1231
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In reply We strongly agree that creating a decision support tool is important to help physicians prioritize interventions when caring for patients with multiple chronic conditions. Indeed, we have a parallel stream of ongoing work directly aligned with this goal.1 We view prioritization as complementary to the payoff time framework, however, rather than as a substitute for assessing individual guidelines. Many guidelines, particularly involving cancer screening, involve downstream benefits but up-front harms (eg, from the tests themselves, and from the management of false-positive results), yet the guidelines are frequently applied to patients with substantial comorbidity. The payoff time approach can be used to deemphasize these recommendations, when appropriate, and the remaining guidelines could be prioritized using a systematic approach based on magnitude of benefit. Correspondence: Dr Braithwaite, Section of General Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, West Haven Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, VACS 11 ACSL-G, 950 Campbell Ave, West Haven, CT 06516 (Ronald.Braithwaite@va.gov). References 1. Dalal MBradley EBraithwaite RS Prioritizing clinical practice guidelines in the primary care setting. Paper presented at: the 29th Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making October 23, 2007 Pittsburgh, PA

Journal

Archives of Internal MedicineAmerican Medical Association

Published: Jun 9, 2008

Keywords: vision

There are no references for this article.