Reply: Guideline recommendations don't exist in a vacuum
Steven Walker, Rob Hallifax, Najib Rahman, Nick Maskell
TL;DR
The paper argues that clinical guidelines should only be changed when strong evidence is available, not based on assumptions.
Contribution
It emphasizes the need for evidence-based updates to medical guidelines, specifically regarding pneumothorax treatment.
Findings
Current evidence for thoracic suction in pneumothorax treatment is insufficient to support guideline changes.
Recommendations should be based on solid evidence, not hypothetical risks.
ERS guidelines remain unchanged due to lack of supporting data.
Abstract
The letter “Debunking the myth: why wall suction should not be routine in pneumothorax treatment” postulated that negative pressure via thoracic suction may lead to worse outcomes for patients and suggests that the joint ERS/EACTS/ESTS clinical practice guidelines on adults with spontaneous pneumothorax [1] should be amended. ERS guidelines must be evidence led. Until this evidence exists, recommendations cannot be made for or against an intervention, such as suction, where the relevant evidence base is very poor. https://bit.ly/4dFXBDR
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsClinical practice guidelines implementation · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes