Reviews, expert opinions, consensus statements, position papers, protocols, and evidence-based guidelines: what are their roles in clinical practice?

IF 1.8
Francisco Tustumi, Lucia Calthorpe, Felipe José Fernández Coimbra, Adnan Alseidi
{"title":"Reviews, expert opinions, consensus statements, position papers, protocols, and evidence-based guidelines: what are their roles in clinical practice?","authors":"Francisco Tustumi, Lucia Calthorpe, Felipe José Fernández Coimbra, Adnan Alseidi","doi":"10.1590/0102-67202025000057e1926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Central message: </strong>Clinical practice guidance documents are not all the same. In digestive surgery, evidence-based guidelines, consensus statements, position papers, and protocols each serve different purposes, and the distinctions between them should be clear. Recognizing the strengths and limitations of each format is essential to improving decision-making, guiding research, and ultimately benefiting our patients.</p><p><strong>Perspectives: </strong>Digestive surgery evolves rapidly, and traditional publication models may not keep pace with emerging technologies and clinical demands. Future guidance documents are expected to incorporate artificial intelligence for evidence screening, living systematic reviews for continuous updates, and transparent digital repositories for open access to consensus voting and dissent. National registries and real-world data will complement trials where randomized evidence is scarce.</p>","PeriodicalId":72298,"journal":{"name":"Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery","volume":"38 ","pages":"e1926"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12971059/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-67202025000057e1926","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Central message: Clinical practice guidance documents are not all the same. In digestive surgery, evidence-based guidelines, consensus statements, position papers, and protocols each serve different purposes, and the distinctions between them should be clear. Recognizing the strengths and limitations of each format is essential to improving decision-making, guiding research, and ultimately benefiting our patients.

Perspectives: Digestive surgery evolves rapidly, and traditional publication models may not keep pace with emerging technologies and clinical demands. Future guidance documents are expected to incorporate artificial intelligence for evidence screening, living systematic reviews for continuous updates, and transparent digital repositories for open access to consensus voting and dissent. National registries and real-world data will complement trials where randomized evidence is scarce.

Abstract Image

综述、专家意见、共识声明、立场文件、协议和循证指南:它们在临床实践中的作用是什么?
中心信息:临床实践指导文件并不完全相同。在消化外科手术中,循证指南、共识声明、立场文件和协议各自服务于不同的目的,它们之间的区别应该明确。认识到每种形式的优势和局限性对于改进决策、指导研究并最终使患者受益至关重要。观点:消化外科发展迅速,传统的出版模式可能无法跟上新兴技术和临床需求的步伐。未来的指导文件预计将纳入用于证据筛选的人工智能、用于持续更新的实时系统审查以及用于公开获取共识投票和异议的透明数字存储库。国家登记和真实数据将补充缺乏随机证据的试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书