Invited Article: Conflicts of interest for authors of American Academy of Neurology clinical practice guidelines

Financial Disclosures Reported by Industry Among Authors of the American Academy of Ophthalmology Clinical Practice Guidelines

Importance

Recommendations of clinical guidelines affect physicians' care delivery. Potential bias and undeclared conflicts of interests (COIs) among guideline authors can impact clinical practice decisions.

Objective

To assess financial disclosures reported by physician authors of the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Practice Pattern Guidelines compared with those reported by industry to evaluate the disclosures' accuracy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, all clinical guidelines in the AAO Preferred Practice Patterns (PPP) since 2013 (first year with publicly available industry payment reports) were reviewed on May 1, 2022. Guideline physician authors' name and their reported COI disclosure were extracted from the guideline publication. Payments to physician authors reported by industry were retrieved from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Open Payments database. Physician authors serving on the AAO guideline committee were included.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of authors' COIs disclosure. Secondary outcome measures were payments to physician authors reported by industry, the types of payments, and authors' gender.

Results

A total of 24 AAO guidelines released between 2016 and 2020 were included. Per guideline, there was a mean (SD) of 7.83 (2.24) physician authors. After removing 14 nonphysician authors, 188 physician author names remained, including 83 names assigned as women (44.1%) and 105 names assigned as men (55.9%). Authors could be counted multiple times in these 188 names. According to the Open Payments database, industry reported that 112 of 188 physician authors (59.6%) had at least received 1 payment while serving on the guideline committee, with a payment mean (SD) of $29 849.35 ($54 131.56). According to AAO guidelines, 149 authors (79.3%) had no financial disclosures while serving on the guideline committee. Among these 149 authors, most authors (81 [54.4%]) had payments reported by industry on the Open Payments database not disclosed within the guideline reports. Women physicians were paid significantly more than men for total payments (median [IQR] payments, $15 265 [$598.47-$41 104.67] vs $301.48 [$218.85-$14 615.09]; difference, $14 963.52; P = .003).

Conclusions and Relevance

Industry reported physician guideline authors to have received significant industry payments, some of which were not disclosed within information of the guidelines. To strengthen author transparency regarding these reported disclosures, the authors may want to review and resolve such potential discrepancies during the review and subsequent publication of guidelines.

Developing the RIGHT-COI&F extension for the reporting conflicts of interest and funding in practice guidelines: study protocol

Background

Conflicts of interest (COI) and funding may influence the development of practice guidelines, but there are no internationally endorsed guidelines specifically focusing on the reporting on issues related to COI and funding in practice guidelines. Our aim is to develop an extension of the essential Reporting Items of Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) for COIs and Funding in practice guidelines (i.e., RIGHT-COI&F).

Methods

We will follow the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network’s toolkit for developing a reporting guideline in six stages: (I) identifying the need for the extension; (II) registering the project and setting up working groups; (III) collecting the initial items; (IV) reaching consensus on the items to be included; (V) revision and formulation of the final checklist; and (VI) dissemination and implementation. We intend to form a multidisciplinary international team of experts to collect and evaluate the items and plan to complete the full reporting guideline in about 2 years.

Discussion

The RIGHT-COI&F statement will help guideline developers improve their reporting of issues related to COIs and funding, and subsequently improve the reporting quality of their guidelines. Journals editors, guideline users and evaluators will benefit from a more complete and transparent reporting of COI.

Trial Registration

We have registered the protocol on the EQUATOR network (https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#RIGHT-COI).

Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Systematic Review

Objective

To systematically evaluate the prevalence of disclosed and undisclosed financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) among clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

Methods

In this systematic review, we ascertained the prevalence and types of FCOI for CPGs from January 1, 1980, to March 3, 2019. The primary outcome was the prevalence of FCOI among authors of CPGs. FCOI disclosures were compared between medical subspecialties and societies producing CPGs.

Results

Among the 37 studies including 14,764 total guideline authors, 45% had at least one FCOI. The prevalence of FCOI per study ranged from 6% to 100%. More authors had FCOI involving general payments (39%) compared with research payments (29%). Oncology, neurology, and gastroenterology had the highest prevalence of FCOI compared with other medical specialties. Among the 8 studies that included the monetary values in US dollars of FCOI, average payments per author ranged from $578 to $242,300. Among the 10 studies that included data on undisclosed FCOI, 32% of authors had undisclosed industry payments.

Conclusion

There are numerous FCOI among authors of CPGs, many of which are undisclosed. Our study found a significant difference in FCOI prevalence based on types of FCOI and CPG sponsor society. Additional research is required to quantify the implications of FCOI on clinical judgment and patient care.

•

Financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) may have an impact on the objectivity of clinical practice guidelines.

•

Among the 37 studies included in this systematic review, 45% of the 14,764 guideline authors had an FCOI.

•

Authors of oncology, neurology, and gastroenterology guidelines had higher prevalence of FCOI compared with other guidelines.

•

Eight studies included monetary value of FCOI, which ranged from $578 to $242,300 per author.

•

Little is known about the direct impact of FCOI on how authors of clinical practice guidelines vote on recommendations during guideline development.

Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations

BACKGROUND

Treatment and diagnostic recommendations are often made in clinical guidelines, reports from advisory committee meetings, opinion pieces such as editorials, and narrative reviews. Quite often, the authors or members of advisory committees have industry ties or particular specialty interests which may impact on which interventions are recommended. Similarly, clinical guidelines and narrative reviews may be funded by industry sources resulting in conflicts of interest.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate to what degree financial and non-financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register for studies published up to February 2020. We also searched reference lists of included studies, Web of Science for studies citing the included studies, and grey literature sources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies comparing the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations of drugs or devices (e.g. recommending a particular drug) in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, or narrative reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently included studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. When a meta-analysis was considered meaningful to synthesise our findings, we used random-effects models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with RR > 1 indicating that documents (e.g. clinical guidelines) with conflicts of interest more often had favourable recommendations. We analysed associations for financial and non-financial conflicts of interest separately, and analysed the four types of documents both separately (pre-planned analyses) and combined (post hoc analysis).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies analysing 106 clinical guidelines, 1809 advisory committee reports, 340 opinion pieces, and 497 narrative reviews. We received unpublished data from 11 studies; eight full data sets and three summary data sets. Fifteen studies had a risk of confounding, as they compared documents that may differ in other aspects than conflicts of interest (e.g. documents on different drugs used for different populations). The associations between financial conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations were: clinical guidelines, RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.69 (four studies of 86 clinical guidelines); advisory committee reports, RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.45 (four studies of 629 advisory committee reports); opinion pieces, RR: 2.62, 95% CI: 0.91 to 7.55 (four studies of 284 opinion pieces); and narrative reviews, RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.49 (four studies of 457 narrative reviews). An analysis combining all four document types supported these findings (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.44). One study investigating specialty interests found that the association between including radiologist guideline authors and recommending routine breast cancer screening was RR: 2.10, 95% CI: 0.92 to 4.77 (12 clinical guidelines).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We interpret our findings to indicate that financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations of drugs and devices in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews. However, we also stress risk of confounding in the included studies and the statistical imprecision of individual analyses of each document type. It is not certain whether non-financial conflicts of interest impact on recommendations.

Patient perspectives on physician conflict of interest in industry-sponsored clinical trials for multiple sclerosis therapeutics

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceutical industry financial support of physicians, physician practices, and academic departments involved in multicenter industry-sponsored clinical trials of novel therapeutic agents is a relatively new and infrequently acknowledged source of potential physician conflict of interest. Detailed disclosure of these relationships to study participants is not uniformly a part of informed consent and documentation practices.

OBJECTIVE

To understand attitudes of patients with multiple sclerosis concerning disclosure of potential physician-industry conflicts of interest created by clinical trials and how such disclosures may influence study participation

METHODS

An anonymous online instrument was developed.

RESULTS

597 people with multiple sclerosis participated in the study. The study found that detailed disclosure of conflicts of interest is important to potential participants in industry-sponsored clinical trials for multiple sclerosis therapies and that the presence of these conflicts of interest may influence patients' decisions to participate in these studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study support a call for uniform guidelines regarding disclosure of physician-industry relationships to prospective research participants for industry-sponsored clinical trials.

Author financial conflicts of interest, industry funding, and clinical practice guidelines for anticancer drugs

PURPOSE

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are used to apply evidence-based medicine or expert recommendations to clinical practice. Here we explore author financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs), sources of guideline funding, and their relationship with endorsement of specific drugs.

METHODS

An electronic search of MEDLINE was conducted to identify CPGs and CSs for common solid cancers published between January 2003 and October 2013. The search was restricted to articles evaluating systemic therapy. We extracted data on self-reported author FCOIs, funding sources, use of manuscript writers, and endorsement of specific drugs in the abstract of the article.

RESULTS

Of 142 articles evaluated, 64% were CPGs, and 36% were CSs. The proportion of articles reporting FCOIs improved from 11% in 2003 to 93% in 2013 (P for trend < .001). Only 45% of articles explicitly reported funding sources. Of these, 65% disclosed partial or full industry sponsorship. Use of manuscript writers was declared in 13%, but many articles did not explicitly report the role of authors in the writing of the manuscript. Endorsement of specific drugs was significantly associated with author FCOIs (odds ratio [OR], 7.29; P = .001), but not with industry funding (OR, 0.95; P = .37).

CONCLUSION

Reporting of FCOIs in CPGs and CSs has improved over time. Despite prevalent funding of guideline development by industry, such funding is not associated with endorsement of specific drugs. Author FCOIs are prevalent, and endorsement of a specific drug seems to be more common when authors have FCOIs with the pharmaceutical company marketing that drug.

Conflicts of interest among authors of clinical practice guidelines for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Conflict of interest (COI) is an important potential source of bias in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

OBJECTIVES

To examine rates of disclosure of COI, including financial interests in companies that manufacture drugs that are recommended in CPGs on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus, and to explore the relationship between recommendations for specific drugs in a guideline and author COI.

METHODS

We identified a cohort of relevant guidelines from the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) and abstracted COI disclosures from all guideline authors for this observational, cross-sectional study. We determined which hypoglycemic drugs were recommended in each guideline, and explored the relationship between specific disclosures and whether a drug was recommended.

RESULTS

Among 13 included guidelines, the percentage of authors with one or more financial disclosures varied from 0 to 94% (mean 44.2%), and was particularly high for two US-based guidelines (91% and 94%). Three guidelines disclosed no author financial COI. The percentage of authors with disclosures of financial interests in manufacturers of recommended drugs was also high (mean 30%). On average, 56% of manufacturers of patented drugs recommended in each guideline had one or more authors with a financial interest in their company. We did not find a significant relationship between financial interests and whether a drug was recommended in our sample; US-based guidelines were more likely to make recommendations for a specific drug compared to non-US based guidelines.

DISCUSSION

Authors of this cohort of guidelines have financial interests directly related to the drugs that they are recommending. Although we did not find an association between author COI and drugs recommended in these guidelines and we cannot draw conclusions about the validity of the recommendations, the credibility of many of these guidelines is in doubt.

Does the pharmaceutical industry influence guidelines?: two examples from Germany

BACKGROUND

The recommendations in clinical guidelines are based on clinical trial findings and expert opinion. The influence of drug companies on these two factors is illustrated with two examples.

METHODS

A judicially ordered expert review revealed that the market authorization holder (MAH) of gabapentin manipulated study data. Gabapentin was, therefore, chosen as an example for this article to analyze whether manipulated data serve as a basis for recommendations in German clinical guidelines. A search was carried out for manipulated publications on gabapentin that found their way into guidelines published by the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF). To analyze the possible effects of financial ties between guideline authors and drug companies, the S3 guideline on the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris with efalizumab was compared with guidelines whose authors had no conflicts of interest. One of the authors of this article had noted variable prescribing practices for psoriasis among dermatologists while carrying out an economic assessment for a German state Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians.

RESULTS

The data that had been manipulated by the MAH of gabapentin served as a basis for recommendations to prescribe gabapentin in guidelines that were published by the AWMF. Efalizumab was judged more favorably in the S3 guideline than in a guideline issued by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence: for example, the evidence for it was judged as good, the use of efalizumab for induction and combination therapy in psoriasis vulgaris was recommended, and efalizumab was said to improve patients' health-related quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Public access to all trial data must be ensured so that independent evaluations are possible. We take the view that the responsibility for creating guidelines should be borne by authors and organizations that do not have any conflicts of interest.

Underreporting of conflicts of interest in clinical practice guidelines: cross sectional study

Background

Conflicts of interest affect recommendations in clinical guidelines and disclosure of such conflicts is important. However, not all conflicts of interest are disclosed. Using a public available disclosure list we determined the prevalence and underreporting of conflicts of interest among authors of clinical guidelines on drug treatments.

Methods

We included up to five guidelines published from July 2010 to March 2012 from each Danish clinical specialty society. Using the disclosure list of the Danish Health and Medicines Authority, we identified author conflicts of interest and compared them with the disclosures in the guidelines. For each guideline we extracted methodological characteristics of guideline development.

Results

Forty-five guidelines from 14 specialty societies were included. Of 254 authors, 135 (53%) had conflicts of interest, corresponding to 43 of the 45 guidelines (96%) having one or more authors with a conflict of interest. Only one of the 45 guidelines (2%) disclosed author conflicts of interest. The most common type of conflict of interest (83 of the 135) was being a consultant, an advisory board member or a company employee. Only 10 guidelines (22%) described the methods used for guideline development, 27 (60%) used references in the text and 11 (24%) graded the types of evidence.

Conclusions

Conflicts of interest were common, but disclosures were very rare. Most guidelines did not describe how they were developed and many did not describe the evidence behind specific recommendations. Publicly available disclosure lists may assist guideline issuing bodies in ensuring that all conflicts are disclosed.

Conflict of interest disclosures for clinical practice guidelines in the national guideline clearinghouse

BACKGROUND

Conflict of interest (COI) is an important potential source of bias in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and high rates of COI among guideline authors have been reported in the past. Our objective was to report current rates of disclosure and specific author COI across a broad range of CPGs and to examine whether CPG characteristics were associated with the presence of disclosures and of conflicts.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We selected a random sample of 250 CPGs listed in the National Guideline Clearinghouse on November 22, 2010, representing approximately a 10% sample of guidelines listed in the NGC on that date. We abstracted information on author COI from each CPG and examined predictors of the disclosures and COI using a logistic generalized estimating equation regression model. 87% of organizations developing guidelines had a CPG-specific policy, however, 40% of CPGs did not indicate that they had collected disclosures from guideline authors. In addition, 42% of organizations that did collect author disclosures did not have those disclosures available in the public domain. Of CPGs where we had disclosures for all authors, 60% had one or more authors with a conflict. On average, 28% of the authors of CPGs with available disclosures had a COI. Guidelines that were published in journals with an impact factor greater than 5.0 were more likely to have one or more authors with a COI than guidelines not published in journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of disclosure of author COI and the public availability of that information are unacceptably low, however rates of COI among guideline authors may have decreased in recent years. Continued efforts are needed to establish and enforce optimal COI policies in clinical practice guideline development in order to minimize the risk of bias associated with those conflicts.

Conflict of interest policies for organizations producing a large number of clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Conflict of interest (COI) of clinical practice guideline (CPG) sponsors and authors is an important potential source of bias in CPG development. The objectives of this study were to describe the COI policies for organizations currently producing a significant number of CPGs, and to determine if these policies meet 2011 Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We identified organizations with five or more guidelines listed in the National Guideline Clearinghouse between January 1, 2009 and November 5, 2010. We obtained the COI policy for each organization from publicly accessible sources, most often the organization's website, and compared those polices to IOM standards related to COI. 37 organizations fulfilled our inclusion criteria, of which 17 (46%) had a COI policy directly related to CPGs. These COI policies varied widely with respect to types of COI addressed, from whom disclosures were collected, monetary thresholds for disclosure, approaches to management, and updating requirements. Not one organization's policy adhered to all seven of the IOM standards that were examined, and nine organizations did not meet a single one of the standards.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

COI policies among organizations producing a large number of CPGs currently do not measure up to IOM standards related to COI disclosure and management. CPG developers need to make significant improvements in these policies and their implementation in order to optimize the quality and credibility of their guidelines.

Financial conflicts of interest in economic analyses in oncology

BACKGROUND

Financial conflicts of interest can influence biomedical research. Using data from the American Society of Hematology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meetings, we evaluated the frequency and influence of financial conflicts of interest on economic analyses in oncology.

METHODS

We systematically searched for economic analyses among American Society of Hematology (2006 to 2008) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (2004 to 2008) annual meeting abstracts. Information was collected on the presence and type of conflict of interest, type of economic analysis, health technology assessed, and author affiliations. To evaluate the influence of conflicts of interest on study results, the abstracts were categorized into 3 groups based on whether the study conclusions directly supported, indirectly supported, or did not support the sponsor's product.

RESULTS

Some financial conflicts of interest were present in 236 of 356 (66%) abstracts of economic analyses, which were submitted for presentation at these meetings. Among economic analyses with a conflict of interest, the conclusions of 138 (59%) studies directly supported the sponsor's product. Another 74 (31%) studies with a conflict of interest indirectly supported the sponsor's product.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial conflicts of interest are prevalent in economic analyses presented at major oncology meetings. The majority of studies with any financial conflict of interest directly or indirectly support the sponsor's product.

Conflict of interest in clinical practice guideline development: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is an emerging literature on the existence and effect of industry relationships on physician and researcher behavior. Much less is known, however, about the effects of these relationships and other conflicts of interest (COI) on clinical practice guideline (CPG) development and recommendations. We performed a systematic review of the prevalence of COI and its effect on CPG recommendations.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We searched Medline (1980 to March, 2011) for studies that examined the effect of COI on CPG development and/or recommendations. Data synthesis was qualitative. Twelve studies fulfilled inclusion criteria; 9 were conducted in the US. All studies reported on financial relationships of CPG authors with the pharmaceutical industry; 1 study also examined relationships with diagnostic testing and insurance companies. The majority of guidelines had authors with industry affiliations, including consultancies (authors with relationship, range 6-80%); research support (4-78%); equity/stock ownership (2-17%); or any COI (56-87%). Four studies reported multiple types of financial interactions for individual authors (number of types per author: range 2 to 10 or more). Data on the effect of COI on CPG recommendations were confined to case studies wherein authors with specific financial ties appeared to benefit from the related CPG recommendations. In a single study, few authors believed that their relationships influenced their recommendations. No studies reported on intellectual COI in CPGs.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

There are limited data describing the high prevalence of COI among CPG authors, and only case studies of the effect of COI on CPG recommendations. Further research is needed to explore this potential source of bias.

Prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among panel members producing clinical practice guidelines in Canada and United States: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among members of panels producing clinical practice guidelines on screening, treatment, or both for hyperlipidaemia or diabetes.

DESIGN

Cross sectional study.

SETTING

Relevant guidelines published by national organisations in the United States and Canada between 2000 and 2010.

PARTICIPANTS

Members of guideline panels.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among members of guideline panels and chairs of panels.

RESULTS

Fourteen guidelines met our search criteria, of which five had no accompanying declaration of conflicts of interest by panel members. 288 panel members had participated in the guideline development process. Among the 288 panel members, 138 (48%) reported conflicts of interest at the time of the publication of the guideline and 150 (52%) either stated that they had no such conflicts or did not have an opportunity to declare any. Among 73 panellists who formally declared no conflicts, 8 (11%) were found to have one or more. Twelve of the 14 guideline panels evaluated identified chairs, among whom six had financial conflicts of interest. Overall, 150 (52%) panel members had conflicts, of which 138 were declared and 12 were undeclared. Panel members from government sponsored guidelines were less likely to have conflicts of interest compared with guidelines sponsored by non-government sources (15/92 (16%) v 135/196 (69%); P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of financial conflicts of interest and their under-reporting by members of panels producing clinical practice guidelines on hyperlipidaemia or diabetes was high, and a relatively high proportion of guidelines did not have public disclosure of conflicts of interest. Organisations that produce guidelines should minimise conflicts of interest among panel members to ensure the credibility and evidence based nature of the guidelines' content.

The examination of peer review and publication in neurology

Despite remarkable growth in the clinical neurology literature, there is little research on peer review and biomedical publication in neurology. Biomedical publication research encompasses every step of the research process, from the methodology to the publication of research findings. Some general medical journals have served as leaders in improving scientific publication. Many medical fields have taken it upon themselves to characterize journals and peer reviewers within their own fields. Not all of these data can be applied to the clinical neurology literature; research methodologies, article types, and the journals themselves are unique to every medical field. This article reviews current publication research in the neurology literature and concludes that, to sustain and improve upon the integrity of clinical neurology research, further study is needed of the journals and the peer review process in neurology. Otherwise, the value of clinical research findings and patient care guidelines will be diminished.

Ações judiciais: estratégia da indústria farmacêutica para introdução de novos medicamentos

OBJETIVO: Analisar a concentração na distribuição dos processos judiciais segundo medicamento (fabricante), médico prescritor e advogado impetrante da ação. MÉTODOS: Estudo descritivo que analisou processos judiciais cadastrados em sistema de controle judicial do Estado de São Paulo, em 2006, gastos realizados com o atendimento às ações judiciais e gastos totais de medicamentos. RESULTADOS: Em 2006, foram gastos 65 milhões de reais pelo estado de São Paulo com o cumprimento das decisões judiciais para atender a cerca de 3.600 pessoas. O gasto total em medicamentos foi de 1,2 bilhão de reais. No período estudado foram analisadas 2.927 ações, que foram ajuizadas por 565 agentes, dos quais 549 eram advogados particulares (97,2% do total de agentes). Os medicamentos solicitados nas demandas judiciais analisadas foram prescritos por 878 médicos diferentes. Ao analisar o número de ações ajuizadas por advogado, observa-se que 35% das ações foram apresentadas por 1% dos advogados. CONCLUSÕES: Os dados das ações com os medicamentos classificados pelo seu fabricante mostram que poucos advogados são responsáveis pela maioria das demandas judiciais desses medicamentos. A observação de que mais de 70% das ações ajuizadas para certos medicamentos são de responsabilidade de um advogado pode sugerir uma relação estreita entre o advogado e o fabricante do medicamento.

Traumatic brain injury and forensic neuropsychology

As part of a special issue of The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, forensic neuropsychology is reviewed as it applies to traumatic brain injury (TBI) and other types of acquired brain injury in which clinical neuropsychologists and rehabilitation psychologists may be asked to render professional opinions about the neurobehavioral effects and outcome of a brain injury. The article introduces and overviews the topic focusing on the process of forensic neuropsychological consultation and practice as it applies to patients with TBI or other types of acquired brain injury. The emphasis is on the application of scientist-practitioner standards as they apply to legal questions about the status of a TBI patient and how best that may be achieved. This article introduces each topic area covered in this special edition.