Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on December 5, 2007
Rheumatology 2008 47(2):222-223; doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kem282
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR |
NICE guidance does not tally with clinical practice—a district general experience
University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Lancaster, UK
Correspondence to: M. Bukhari, University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Ashton Road, Lancaster LAI 4RP, UK. E-mail: marwan.bukhari@mbht.nhs.uk
| The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below. |
SIR, We read with interest the articles about the High Court disagreeing with The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) [1]. In rheumatology, we have had a similar experience with NICE guidance being at variance with
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
S. Adimulam, C. Greenbank, J. Halsey, and M. Bukhari Comment on: NICE guidance does not tally with clinical practice--a district general experience: reply Rheumatology, November 1, 2008; 47(11): 1736 - 1736. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
