本特刊建立的指南挑战会议是其“进一步相关问题”的第一个问题：“我们如何在指南中纳入更多类型的因果关系相关信息？”本文首先支持这个问题的前提-我们需要进一步的证据-通过指出随机对照试验，被吹捧为有效性的最佳证据来源，能为我们做的很少。第二,它概述了一些其他的好方法来学习什么将是医学界的工作，和许多公共卫生界，没有太多利用。
The
Guidelines Challenge Conference on which this special issue builds asked as the first of its \"further relevant questions\": \"How do we incorporate more types of causally relevant information in
guidelines?\" This paper first supports the presupposition of this question-that we need further kinds of evidence-by pointing out that the randomized controlled trial, touted as the best source of evidence on effectiveness, can do so little for us. Second, it outlines a number of other good ways to learn what will work that the medical community, and much of the public health community, is not making much use of.
