RT Journal
A1 Concato J, Horwitz RI
T1 CLinical practice guidelines and scientific evidence
JF JAMA
JO JAMA
YR 2009
FD July 8
VO 302
IS 2
SP 142
OP 147
DO 10.1001/jama.2009.914
UL http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.914
AB 
The Editorial considered the substantial proportion of recommendations based on results from nonrandomized studies to represent a failure of the process of developing guidelines. Similarly, the finding that many topics involve conflicting evidence was considered disconcerting. These issues were attributed mainly to the influence of specialty societies and to financial conflicts of interest. Conspicuously absent from the Editorial, however, was any mention of problems with hierarchies of evidence themselves.3- 4