Abstract

Guidelines and Expert Consensus documents aim to present management and recommendations based on all of the relevant evidence on a particular subject in order to help physicians to select the best possible management strategies for the individual patient, suffering from a specific condition, taking into account not only the impact on outcome, but also the risk benefit ratio of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. The ESC recommendations for guidelines production can be found on the ESC website†. In brief, the ESC appoints experts in the field to carry out a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and to assess the risk–benefit ratio of the therapies recommended for management and/or prevention of a given condition. The strength of evidence for or against particular procedures or treatments is weighed according to predefined scales for grading recommendations and levels of evidence, as outlined below. Once the document has been finalized and approved by all the experts involved in the Task Force, it is submitted to outside specialists for review. If necessary, the document is revised once more to be finally approved by the Committee for Practice Guidelines and selected members of the Board of the ESC. The ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines ( CPG ) supervises and coordinates the preparation of new Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents produced by Task Forces, expert groups, or consensus panels. The chosen experts in these writing panels are asked to provide disclosure statements of all relationships they may have, which might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest. These disclosure forms are kept on file at the European Heart House, headquarters of the ESC. The Committee is also responsible for the endorsement of these Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents or statements. | Classes of recommendations | |:-------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Class I | Evidence and/or general agreement that a given diagnostic procedure/treatment is beneficial, useful, and effective | | Class II | Conflicting evidence and/or a divergence of opinion about the usefulness/efficacy of the treatment or procedure | | Class IIa | Weight of evidence/opinion is in favour of usefulness/efficacy | | Class IIb | Usefulness/efficacy is less well established by evidence/opinion | | Class III | Evidence or general agreement that the treatment or procedure is not useful/effective and, in some cases, may be harmful | Diabetes and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) often appear …