Distinguishing ASH clinical practice guidelines from other forms of ASH clinical advice

Adam Cuker*, Robert Kunkle, Rachel S. Bercovitz, Michael Byrne, Benjamin Djulbegovic, Sandra L. Haberichter, Jennifer Holter-Chakrabarty, Richard Lottenberg, Menaka Pai, Suely M. Rezende, Matthew D. Seftel, Roy L. Silverstein, Deirdra R. Terrell, Matthew C. Cheung

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


The American Society of Hematology (ASH) develops a variety of resources that provide guidance to clinicians on the diagnosis and management of blood diseases. These resources include clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and other forms of clinical advice. Although both ASH CPGs and other forms of clinical advice provide recommendations, they differ with respect to the methods underpinning their development, the principal type of recommendations they offer, their transparency and concordance with published evidence, and the time and resources required for their development. It is crucial that end users be aware of the differences between CPGs and other forms of clinical advice and that producers and publishers of these resources use clear and unambiguous terminology to facilitate their distinction. The objective of this article is to highlight the similarities and differences between ASH CPGs and other forms of ASH clinical advice and discuss the implications of these differences for end users.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2960-2963
Number of pages4
JournalBlood Advances
Issue number11
StatePublished - Jun 11 2024

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hematology

Cite this