Navigation

    Forum

    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups

    191 - I understand that a Canadian consensus guideline is an acceptable, authoritative source. Correct? If the consensus is published in a peer-reviewed journal, but it is not explicitly called a "guideline" in the title, is this acceptable? (E.g., "Canadian consensus on..." or "Canadian clinical guidance...")

    Claims & Support/References for Claims
    1
    1
    44
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • Jennifer Carroll
      Jennifer Carroll last edited by

      Whether the title contains the word "guideline" is typically not in and of itself a pivotal factor in PAAB approval. It is more important that the source be reliable and authoritative. Statements taken from Canadian authoritative guidelines (e.g. place in therapy) can be considered in drug advertising provided they are consistent with the Terms of Market Authorization (s3.1) and based on good evidence. While some guidelines are published, they may not be endorsed or recognized by an authoritative medical body and therefore may not be reflective of current medical practice (s3.2). Note that a nationally recognized consensus would be preferred over a regional consensus. Note that content from Canadian authoritative guidelines is not automatically accepted in APS. All PAAB codes must be considered.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • First post
        Last post