In an editorial in their journal, the American Medical Association gave profound criticism to the process by which treatment and testing guidelines are prepared for practicing physicians. They suggest immediate reforms: appropriate expertise on committees to include clinical experience, avoid placing the same people on the committees from one edition to the next, reporting on disagreements on the committees, asking for public comment via the internet, avoiding the conflicts of interest (especially financial) that are now prevalent, independent peer review, publishing alternative interpretations, and requiring associations which distribute guidelines to not accept financial support from the industry to do so. Hear, hear! It sounds good. But we shall see if this voice has any impact to put a dent in the medical-industrial complex that has proven to be horribly expensive and marginally effective.
See Journal of the American Medical Association (click here for home page) January 28, 2009 issue, p. 429-432 (click here for article)