Forum Update: Supporting Community-Led Discussion
The forum was created as a space for shared learning and peer support, and as the community grows, we want to lean more fully into that purpose.
Going forward, PAAB will be taking a more listening-first role in forum discussions. Rather than responding immediately to every question, we’ll be encouraging members to engage with one another, share experiences, and help build collective understanding. PAAB will continue to monitor conversations and will step in to:
- Correct any misunderstandings
- Provide guidance when questions remain unanswered after a few days
- Support discussions where official clarification is needed
Our goal is to foster a collaborative, trusted community where knowledge is shared and strengthened by everyone’s contributions.
Thank you for being part of the conversation.
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...")
-
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.
