Margaret McCartney and colleagues argue that new models of evidence synthesis and shared decision making are needed to accelerate a move from guideline driven care to individualised care

No abstract

Expanding disease definitions are causing more and more previously healthy people to be labelled as diseased, contributing to the problem of overdiagnosis and related overtreatment. Often the specialist guideline panels which expand definitions have close tis to industry and do not investigate the harms of defining more people as sick. Responding to growing calls to address these problems, an international group of leading researchers and clinicians is proposing a new way to set diagnostic thresholds and mark the boundaries of condition definitions, to try to tackle a key driver of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The group proposes new evidence-informed principles, with new process and new people constituting new multidisciplinary panels, free from financial conflicts of interest.

Background: GPs prescribe multiple long-term treatments to their patients. For shared clinical decision-making, understanding of the absolute benefits and harms of individual treatments is needed. International evidence shows that doctors' knowledge of treatment effects is poor but, to the authors knowledge, this has not been researched among GPs in the UK.Aim: To measure the level and range of the quantitative understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for common long-term conditions (LTCs) among GPs.Design & setting: An online cross-sectional survey was distributed to GPs in the UK. Method:Participants were asked to estimate the percentage absolute risk reduction or increase conferred by 13 interventions across 10 LTCs on 17 important outcomes. Responses were collated and presented in a novel graphic format to allow detailed visualisation of the findings. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed.