Was an explicit and sensible process used to consider the relative value of different outcomes?
Linking treatment options to outcomes is largely a question of fact and a matter of science. In contrast, assigning preferences to outcomes is largely a question of opinion and a matter of value. The extent to which HRT increases the incidence of breast cancer or decreases death rates from myocardial infarction can be ascertained from the evidence. The relative importance placed on avoiding breast cancer or cardiovascular disease depends upon what patients care about most. Consequently, it is important that guideline developers report the sources of their value judgments and the method by which consensus was sought. You should look for information about who was explicitly involved in assigning values to outcomes, or who, by influencing recommendations, was implicitly involved in assigning values. Expert panels and consensus groups are often used to determine what a guideline will say. You need to know who the panel members are, bearing in mind that panels dominated by members of specia
Related Questions
- For physician hand-offs, does the same process have to be used throughout the hospital. Can different specialties use different methods of communication within their call group?
- Was an explicit and sensible process used to identify, select and combine the evidence into probabilities?
- Was an explicit and sensible process used to consider the relative values of different outcomes?
