Part 2: evidence evaluation and management of potential or perceived conflicts of interest: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

Circulation. 2010 Nov 2;122(18 Suppl 3):S657-64. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.966861.


In summary, the evidence review process has attempted to provide a systematic review of the scientific literature using a priori defined methods. The details and steps of the literature review are transparent and replicable. External opinions and community critique are highly valued, and the final products represent the combined labor of hundreds of participants.

Publication types

  • Review
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • American Heart Association*
  • Cardiology / ethics
  • Cardiology / standards
  • Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation / ethics*
  • Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation / standards
  • Conflict of Interest*
  • Emergency Medical Services / ethics
  • Emergency Medical Services / standards
  • Evidence-Based Medicine / ethics*
  • Evidence-Based Medicine / standards
  • Humans
  • Perception
  • Practice Guidelines as Topic* / standards
  • United States