Slashdot Mirror
HHS Plans To Delete 20 Years of Critical Medical Guidelines Next Week (thedailybeast.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Daily Beast: The Trump Administration is planning to eliminate a vast trove of medical guidelines that for nearly 20 years has been a critical resource for doctors, researchers and others in the medical community. Maintained by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [AHRQ], part of the Department of Health and Human Services, the database is known as the National Guideline Clearinghouse [NGC], and it's scheduled to "go dark," in the words of an official there, on July 16. "Guideline.gov was our go-to source, and there is nothing else like it in the world," King said, referring to the URL at which the database is hosted, which the agency says receives about 200,000 visitors per month. "It is a singular resource," Valerie King, a professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Director of Research at the Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University, added. [She] said the NGC is perhaps the most important repository of evidence-based research available.
Medical guidelines are best thought of as cheatsheets for the medical field, compiling the latest research in an easy-to use format. When doctors want to know when they should start insulin treatments, or how best to manage an HIV patient in unstable housing -- even something as mundane as when to start an older patient on a vitamin D supplement -- they look for the relevant guidelines. The documents are published by a myriad of professional and other organizations, and NGC has long been considered among the most comprehensive and reliable repositories in the world. AHRQ said it's looking for a partner that can carry on the work of NGC, but that effort hasn't panned out yet. Not even an archived version of the site will remain, according to an official at AHRQ.
Medical guidelines are best thought of as cheatsheets for the medical field, compiling the latest research in an easy-to use format. When doctors want to know when they should start insulin treatments, or how best to manage an HIV patient in unstable housing -- even something as mundane as when to start an older patient on a vitamin D supplement -- they look for the relevant guidelines. The documents are published by a myriad of professional and other organizations, and NGC has long been considered among the most comprehensive and reliable repositories in the world. AHRQ said it's looking for a partner that can carry on the work of NGC, but that effort hasn't panned out yet. Not even an archived version of the site will remain, according to an official at AHRQ.
This was announced officially back in April.
Back in February the HHS, which runs the office which runs this, released its budget request for the upcoming year. In it, they identified this as being duplicated in other governmental agencies and requested money to transfer the duties and money to different offices or agencies.
The office than in April decided to kill this database even before any of that request to kill it off was approved by Congress and divert the money they were spending on it to something else.
The article being linked to is yet another worthless opinion piece being passed off as actual journalism. The truth is no one really cares about this database and given four months for someone to come forward take it over no one has. The only reason it is being posted here is as a political hit piece.
I wrote-in Bernie. Living in North Georgia, I knew that Trump would win Georgia anyway so I voted for the guy who would have wiped the floor with Trump.
I say that knowing that 90%+ of Trump's vote was actually ABC (Anybody But Clinton).
What I see on Slashdot is an awful lot of non-doctors (myself included) pontificating on this move. Is it really widely used? I don't know. All *I* (and the rest of you) have to go on is the demonstrated value which currently is zero as there are no takers to carry on this data.
Not a doctor yet, but I am a biomedical nerd and aware of how useful those in the research area tend to consider best practices guidelines--and my first question about this actually was "Why is this not at NIH?"
The general rule of thumb is that the lag time is too long between where the research says are the medical best practices and what any published list anywhere will say--part of this is because, to put it bluntly, most doctors aren't particularly into research and don't keep up with it. Those best practices databases aren't going to be getting kept up-to-date and current, and I honestly don't think there's a solution for this short of starting from scratch--if nothing else, because each and every entry should have a date on it saying when it was last checked on and it should be routinely gone into to add data. There is no such thing as too much data if you're trying to figure out what works in which populations; the more you have, the more certain you can be...and the more likely you are to be able to pin down which populations that have strange responses, which is pretty much a basic requirement if you want to do anything more than shrug and move on...and it's also a requirement for improving and fine-tuning the evidence.
I don't think it's because she's a woman, if that's what you mean. Remember Sarah Palin? And Obama was, well, you know...
There were a few iffy things in her past - nothing proven, but mud sticks. She has the charisma of a tepid lettuce. And the whole dynasty thing, though I suspect we ain't seen nothin' yet on that front.
The survivors in 2050 or so might speak of 1776 as being the First American Revolution.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Or Proportional Representation where you add up the votes nation wide and you get a percent of the seats equal to your percent of the votes.
Very true:
Hillary told lies so I voted for an much bigger liar. My point exactly.
SJW n. One who posts facts.