4.3 Article

Developing Hypertension Guidelines: An Evolving Process

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 765-772

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ajh/hpt298

关键词

blood pressure; clinical guidelines; evaluation and treatment of hypertensions; hypertension; JNC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypertension guidelines provide up-to-date information and recommendations for hypertension management to healthcare providers, and they facilitate translation of new knowledge into clinical practice. Guidelines represent consensus statements by expert panels, and the process of guideline development has inherent vulnerabilities. Between 1977 and 2003, under the direction of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC) issued 7 reports. The evolution of the JNC recommendations reflects the acquisition of observational and clinical trial data and the availability of newer antihypertensive drugs. Despite 5 years in preparation, NIH did not release a JNC 8 report and recently made the decision to withdraw from issuing guidelines. The responsibility for issuing hypertension-related guidelines was transferred to the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology. Without the endorsement of the NIH or the AHA, JNC 8 committee members recently published their guideline report. Notably, there have been discrepancies of JNC recommendations over time as well as discrepancies with recommendations of other professional organizations. The Institute of Medicine recently recommended criteria for trustworthyguidelines. Criticisms of the guideline process, and of the guidelines themselves, should not obscure their likely contribution to improved hypertension control and to decreases of mortality rates of stroke and cardiovascular disease over the past several decades. Nevertheless, translation of guidelines into clinical practice remains a challenge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据