DIOPATHIC thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP, also I known as primary immune thrombocytopenic purpura) is a hematologic disorder for which appropriate diagnostic and treatment strategies are uncertain. In 1994, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) established a panel to produce explicitly developed practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of ITP. "Explicitly developed," evidencebased practice guidelines, which are being issued increasingly by medical specialty societies, combine a critical appraisal of scientific evidence with practice recommendations that state clearly to what extent the guidelines are based either on published scientific evidence or opinion (eg, clinical experience).I4 More details about the clinical practice guideline movement are provided elsewhere.'.'This report begins with a brief summary of the panel's recommendations, followed by a more detailed analysis of its methodology, the findings of the comprehensive literature review, and a full presentation of the recommendations. The report concludes with recommendations for future research. As explained later, the recommendations are based on the panel's opinion, derived from a systematic scoring methodology. (Only recommendations receiving scores of 1 .O to 3.0 or 7.0 to 9.0, as defined later in the text, are cited in this summary.) SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Children Diagnosis

DIOPATHIC thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP, also I known as primary immune thrombocytopenic purpura) is a hematologic disorder for which appropriate diagnostic and treatment strategies are uncertain. In 1994, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) established a panel to produce explicitly developed practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of ITP. "Explicitly developed," evidencebased practice guidelines, which are being issued increasingly by medical specialty societies, combine a critical appraisal of scientific evidence with practice recommendations that state clearly to what extent the guidelines are based either on published scientific evidence or opinion (eg, clinical experience).I4 More details about the clinical practice guideline movement are provided elsewhere.'.' This report begins with a brief summary of the panel's recommendations, followed by a more detailed analysis of its methodology, the findings of the comprehensive literature review, and a full presentation of the recommendations. The report concludes with recommendations for future research. As explained later, the recommendations are based on the panel's opinion, derived from a systematic scoring methodology. (Only recommendations receiving scores of 1 .O to 3.0 or 7.0 to 9.0, as defined later in the text, are cited in this summary.)

Patients who release personal information for health services research differ in important characteristics from those who do not. In this study, older patients and those in poorer health were more likely to grant consent. Quality and health services research restricted to patients who give consent may misrepresent outcomes for the general population. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:1111-1118

The US Preventive Services Task Force is an expert panel established by the federal government in 1984 to develop evidence-based practice guidelines on screening tests and other preventive services. Its recommendations are published elsewhere. This article explores the lessons learned in the process of developing and disseminating the recommendations. Topics include project organization (analytic philosophy, project sponsorship, panel composition, topic selection); the review of evidence (selecting outcome measures for judging effectiveness, constructing "causal pathways," searching the literature, rating the evidence, synthesizing the results); crafting recommendations (extrapolation, assessing magnitude, balancing risks and benefits, addressing costs, dealing with insufficient data, separating science from policy); peer review; collaboration with other groups; evaluating impact on clinicians' knowledge, attitudes, and behavior; updating recommendations; and defining a research agenda. The lessons learned suggest potential refinements in the future work of the task force and other groups engaged in guideline development.

No abstract