This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

The Case of Steroid Treatment in Multiple Sclerosis

Matthew Menken, MD

Arch Neurol. 1989;46(3):322.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

IN RECENT years, consensus has emerged as a powerful tool for evaluating the appropriateness of selected applications of new technologies in medical practice and for setting the standards of practice in defined situations. As used in this context, the concept of a consensus reflects the extent to which there is agreement among experts in matters of opinion and thus represents the collective viewpoint of workers in a certain field. The consensus process has been shown to be highly sensitive to evidence derived from biomedical research: the better the empirical evidence, the greater the consensus.¹

As presently used, however, the consensus process assumes that the patterns of responsibility for practicing neurologists and other physicians follow directly and exclusively from the development of a consensus founded on the best available biomedical evidence in the peer-reviewed literature. The general question of importance for clinicians is whether standards of good medical practice . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Neurology, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Brunswick.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication Sept 19, 1988.

Reprint requests to 1527 Highway 27, Somerset, NJ 08873 (Dr Menken).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?