Highlights the procedural limitations and lack of high-level evidence in current thoracic aortic disease guidelines, emphasizing the need for individualized care and further randomized trials.
Supports individualized thoracic aortic disease management via guidelines, consensus, and registries; leaves open need for randomized trials to close evidence gaps.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pacini et al. (2016) conducted a review in Thoracic aortic disease. Clinical practice guidelines, expert consensus documents, and registries was evaluated. Clinical practice guidelines, expert consensus documents, and registries each have distinct benefits and limitations in guiding the management of thoracic aortic disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: