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

AGREE II Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines on Generalized Cancer Pain Management

PURPOSE

While several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) exist to guide clinical decision-making in patients with generalized cancer pain, to date there has been no comprehensive review of their quality. Our aim was to address this deficiency via the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool.

DESIGN

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline-based systematic literature search followed by AGREE II appraisal of identified CPGs.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE via PubMed, and Scopus were searched from inception to March 3, 2021, for relevant CPGs. Four authors (FR, AR, JN, JH) independently performed assessments and evaluations of the selected CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. Scaled domain percentage scores were calculated with 60% as the satisfactory quality threshold. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were also calculated to assess interrater reliability.

RESULTS

Twelve guidelines were selected for inclusion. Two guidelines were classified high quality, three guidelines as average quality, and seven as low quality. Domains of clarity of presentation (82.41% ± 18.20%) and scope and purpose (56.48% ± 30.59%) received the highest mean scores, while domains of applicability (44.53% ± 26.61%) and stakeholder involvement (36.81% ± 21.24%) received the lowest. ICCs showed high consistency between reviewers (range 0.85-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Most CPGs for generalized cancer pain are of low quality. Future guidelines can be improved by better-defining scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence during development.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

We hope these critiques improve the quality of published guidelines to promote an improved quality of care and method to measure quality outcomes.

Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding in Health Care Guidelines: The RIGHT-COI&F Checklist

BACKGROUND

Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist.

DESIGN

The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist.

SETTING

International collaboration.

PARTICIPANTS

44 experts.

MEASUREMENTS

Consensus on checklist items.

RESULTS

The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization's guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization's policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline.

LIMITATION

The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use.

CONCLUSION

The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

Management of evidence and conflict of interest in guidelines on early childhood allergy prevention and child nutrition: study protocol of a systematic synthesis of guidelines and explorative network analysis

Background

With the rising prevalence of allergic diseases in children, prevention of childhood allergies becomes an important public health issue. Recently, a paradigm shift is taking place in the approach to preventing allergies, and clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG) play an important role in providing practitioners with the latest evidence and reliable guidance. However, concern about the methodological quality of the development of FBDGs and CPGs, including limitations in the systematic reviews, lack of transparency and unmanaged conflicts of interest (COI), reduce the trust in these guidelines.

Methods

We aim to synthesize the available guidance on early childhood allergy prevention (ECAP) through a systematic search for national and international CPGs and FBDGs concerning ECAP and child nutrition (CN) and to assess the quality of the guidelines and management of COI. Additionally, we will analyse the content and the evidence base of the recommendation statements. We aim to quantify the COI in guideline panellists and explore possible associations between COI and recommendations. Through a social network analysis, we expect to elucidate ties between panellists, researchers, institutions, industry and other sponsors. Guidelines are an important tool to inform healthcare practitioners with the newest evidence, but quality and reliability have to be high. This study will help identify potential for further improvement in the development of guidelines and the management of COI. If the social network analysis proves feasible and reveals more information on COI in comparison to disclosed COI from the previous analyses, the methodology can be developed further to identify undisclosed COIs in panelists.

Ethics and dissemination

This research does not require ethical approval because no human subjects are involved. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed open access journals and via presentations at scientific conferences.

Content and quality of clinical practice guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes in India: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Over the last few decades, India has witnessed an increase in the number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Consequently, several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to assist western and traditional Indian medicine practitioners in managing this disease. This systematic review aimed to evaluate and synthesize the content and quality of these CPGs.

METHODS

Several databases and sources were searched from inception to May 2022, to identify CPGs for managing adults with T2DM in India. The screening of titles and abstracts and full texts, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third reviewer. A data extraction tool from a previous study was adapted to extract the content of the included CPGs, and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool was used to assess the quality of the included CPGs. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

Of 3350 records identified, 11 were retrieved for full-text screening and five CPGs were included in this systematic review-three focused on traditional Indian medicine (Ayurveda) and two focused on western medicine. These two western medicine CPGs contained comprehensive recommendations for managing T2DM but only one of these, the Research Society for the Study of Diabetes in India/Endocrine Society of India (RSSDI/ESI) CPG, was of high quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Only one CPG can be recommended for managing T2DM by western medicine practitioners in India. Future CPGs, especially for traditional Indian medicine practitioners, should be developed and updated using the standard CPG manuals and quality appraisal tools.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021279499).

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).

PROTOCOL: Conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in health and healthcare guideline development: a systematic review

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The overall objective of this study is to gather and summarize the existing literature on conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in guideline development.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Are Primarily Based on Low-Moderate-Quality Evidence

BACKGROUND

Owning to colorectal cancer's (CRC) high mortality, multiple societies developed screening guidelines.

AIMS

We aimed to assess the overall quality of CRC screening guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed to review CRC screening guidelines for conflicts of interest (COI), recommendation quality and strength, external document review, use of patient representative, and recommendation age-as per Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards. In addition, recommendations were compared between guidelines/societies. Statistical analysis was conducted using R.

RESULTS

Twelve manuscripts were included in final analysis. Not all guidelines reported on COI, provided a grading method, underwent external review, or included patient representation. 14.5%, 34.2%, and 51.3% of recommendations were based on high-, moderate-, and low-quality evidence, respectively. 27.8%, 54.6%, and 17.5% of recommendations were strong, weak/conditional, and did not provide a strength, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence and strong recommendations did not significantly differ across societies, nor were significant associations between publication year and evidence quality seen (P = 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

While the majority of the CRC guidelines contain aspects of the standards set forth by the IOM, there is an overall lack of adherence. As over 85% of recommendations are based on low-moderate quality evidence, further studies on CRC screening are warranted to improve the overall quality of evidence.

Analysis of the Status and Trends of Chinese Clinical Practice Guideline Development Between 2010 and 2020: A Systematic Review

Objective: This study aimed to systematically review the status and trends of Chinese clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) during the time period 2010-2020 and explore their methodological characteristics. Then, based on the strengths and weaknesses in development, offer several recommendations for the quality improvement which will serve as a reference for the users and developers of CPG. Introduction: With the development of evidence-based medicine (EBM), the CPGs play an increasingly important role in healthcare decision-making both in China and worldwide. Inclusion criteria: The CPGs that have been used to help the health professionals in the healthcare decision-making were included. Methodology: The China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang databases were searched from 2010 to 2020 for the studies describing the general and methodological characteristics of Chinese CPGs. Comparisons of the methodological characteristics between the groups were conducted using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. The M-K test was adopted to identify the monotonically increasing or decreasing trends of methodological characteristics over the timespan. Results: A total of 2,654 CPGs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The quantity and quality of the guidelines developed in China have improved over the time span. From 2010 to 2020,the guidelines had differing characteristics and covered a wide range of subjects. In total, 2,318(87.34%) guidelines focused on Western Medicine. Eight (0.30%) had been developed for patient versions of guidelines, 10(0.38%) were tentative guidelines, and 16(0.60%) were rapid advice guidelines. Medical specialty societies (including their branches) (71.1%) were the main guideline makers. The most addressed diseases were neoplasms (14.43%). The target population is mainly adults (84.97%). The methodological quality of consensus-based (CB)-CPGs was obviously lower than evidence-based (EB)-CPGs. Except for the item, "recommendations were based on evidence of systematic reviews," there were statistical differences in all other methodological items between the EB-CPGS and CB-CPGS (P < 0.01). Higher methodological quality has been observed in EB-CPGs. All the data relating to the methodological characteristics indicated that higher methodological quality was present in the guidelines using GRADE (P < 0.01). Conclusion: The quantity and quality of the guidelines developed in China have improved between 2010 and 2020. CB-CPGs have also paid attention to the methodology quality, but obviously, this is lower than that in the EB-CPGs.

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.

Reporting of financial conflicts of interest by Canadian clinical practice guideline producers: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

The producers of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may not disclose industry funding in their CPGs. We reviewed Canadian national CPGs to examine the existence and disclosure of industry-related organizational funding in the CPGs, financial conflicts of interest of committee members and organizational procedures for managing financial conflicts of interest.

METHODS

For this descriptive study, we searched the asset map of the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Evidence Alliance and the CPG Infobase for CPGs published between Jan. 1, 2016, and Nov. 30, 2018. Eligible guidelines had to have a national focus and either a first-line drug recommendation or a screening recommendation leading to drug treatment. One investigator reviewed all CPG titles to exclude those that were clearly ineligible. Two reviewers independently reviewed all remaining guidelines and extracted data. We analyzed the data descriptively.

RESULTS

We included 21 CPGs: 3 from government-sponsored organizations, 9 from disease or condition interest groups and 9 from medical professional societies. None of the 3 government-sponsored organizations reported industry funding, and none of their committee members disclosed financial conflicts of interest. Among the 18 disease or condition interest groups and medical professional societies, 14 (93%) of the 15 that disclosed funding sources on websites (3 did not disclose) reported organizational funding from industry, but none disclosed this information in the CPGs; 12 (86%) of the 14 with conflict-of-interest disclosure statements in the CPG (4 did not include disclosures) had at least 1 committee member with a financial conflict (mean proportion of committee members with a conflict 56%); and for all 8 CPGs with identifiable chairs or cochairs (chairs or cochairs not reported for 10) at least 1 of these people had a financial conflict of interest. None of the guidelines described a plan to manage organizational financial conflicts of interest.

INTERPRETATION

Canadian CPGs are vulnerable to industry influence through funding of producers of guidelines and through the financial conflicts of interest of committee members. The CPG producers that receive industry funding should disclose organizational financial conflicts in the CPGs, should engage independent oversight committees and should restrict voting on recommendations to guideline panelists who have no financial conflicts.

Financial conflicts of interest among National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guideline panelists in 2019

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are evidence-based guidelines that serve as a standard of care in oncology practice, reimbursements, and quality improvement initiatives. To our knowledge, the extent of financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines have not been systemically evaluated. The current study evaluated the extent of FCOIs in the NCCN CPGs for the most common malignancies in the United States.

METHODS

The authors examined the latest 2019 versions of the NCCN CPGs for the 10 most common cancers by incidence in the United States. Using disclosure lists, they catalogued the FCOIs for the panelists under various categories outlined in the CPG. The authors also tabulated the companies and institutions involved in each panel disclosure. An "episode" describes 1 instance of participation of a panelist in 1 company in 1 category of each guideline. "Affiliation" describes an industrial, commercial, or institutional affiliation reported by a panelist in each episode.

RESULTS

Of the 491 panelists on the CPG panel, 483 (98.3%) completed FCOI disclosures. A total of 224 (46.4%) reported at least 1 FCOI episode. A total of 1103 episodes were disclosed with an average of 4.9 episodes reported per panelist with FCOIs. Acting as part of scientific advisory boards, as a consultant, or as an expert witness was the most common FCOI category (19.9%). A total of 191 companies were associated with 1103 episodes of FCOI. The top companies were Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech, and AstraZeneca. Among cancers, the prevalence of FCOIs was highest for lung cancer (56%), bladder cancer (52%), pancreatic cancer (52%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (50%), kidney cancer (49%), colorectal cancer (43%), breast cancer (42%), melanoma (40%), prostate cancer (38%), and uterine cancer (32%). Among the panelists with FCOIs, 26%, 17%, and 57%, respectively, reported 1, 2, and >3 episodes. There were 127 episodes noted among the CPG chairs and/or vice chairs who reported FCOIs (mean, 6.4 episodes). The chairs and/or vice chairs of CPGs for uterine cancer, pancreatic cancer, melanoma, and prostate cancer were not found to have any FCOIs.

CONCLUSIONS

FCOIs are very prevalent among NCCN CPG panelists. In nearly one-half of the CPGs, the majority of the panelists had at least 1 FCOI. Greater than one-half of the CPG chairs and/or vice chairs reported multiple FCOIs. Further research studies are necessary to determine the impact of these FCOIs.

Critical appraisal of papers reporting recommendation on sarcopenia using the AGREE II tool: a EuroAIM initiative

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The growing interest of medical community about sarcopenia resulted in the production of several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), with an unavoidable variability in terms of the overall quality of those publications. Our aim is to evaluate the quality of CPGs on sarcopenia using the AGREE II instrument.

SUBJECTS/METHODS

We performed an online literature search for sarcopenia CPGs using different databases. Four independent reviewers evaluated the quality of CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. To classify the quality of each guideline, we defined specific thresholds of final score: high-quality if five or more domains scored >60%; average-quality if three or four domains scored >60%; low-quality if ≤2 domains scored >60%.

RESULTS

Our literature search yielded 315 articles, and after applying exclusion criteria our final analysis included 19 CPGs. The overall quality of CPGs was remarkable, as 13/19 (68.4%) were considered of "high-quality" CPGs, with more than four domains reached a score higher than 60%. "Scope and Purpose" and "Clarity of Presentations" had the best domain results (78.4% and 73.8%, respectively), while the two domains with the lowest scores were "Rigor of Development" and "Applicability" (61.5% and 58.7%, respectively). Interobserver variability ranged between moderate (0.624) and fair (0.275).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that the overall quality of CPGs about sarcopenia was noteworthy, as more than two-third of paper obtained a "high-quality" score. The domain "applicability" had the lowest score, suggesting that emphasis should be put on possible strategies for helping other doctors to implement guideline recommendations in clinical practice.

Assessing the Quality of Existing Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chemotherapy Drug Extravasation by Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II

Background:

Extravasation is a potentially hazardous event that may occur during chemotherapy. The aim of this study is to assess the quality of existing Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for chemotherapy drug extravasation by Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II).

Materials and Methods:

Valid electronic databases and CPGs from 2007 to August 2018 were searched by keywords of CPGs, extravasation, chemotherapy, and cancer. CPGs were evaluated independently by five experts through AGREE II tool, and the consensus among evaluators was calculated by ICC (Intra-class Correlation Coefficient).

Results:

Five of the 111 CPGs matched the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of CPGs in domains of “scope and purpose,“ “stakeholder involvement,“ “clarity of presentation,“ and “applicability“ were good, in the domain of “rigor of development,“ was acceptable, and in “editorial independence“ domain, it needed more attention of developers of CPGs. The range of assessors' consensus was within a range of moderate to very good (0.55--0.93).

Conclusions:

The methodological quality of existing CPGs of chemotherapy drugs extravasation assessed by AGREE II tool is appropriate. Four CPGs had high level while one had moderate level of quality. Therefore, their use is recommended in the clinic to reduce the risk of chemotherapy extravasation to the entire treatment team and the nurses working in the oncology departments.

Disclosure of Interests and Management of Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Guidelines and Guidance Statements: Methods From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians

One of the hallmarks of a trustworthy clinical guideline or guidance statement is a comprehensive process for disclosure of interests (DOI) and management of conflicts of interest (COIs). The American College of Physicians (ACP) Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) aims to disclose all health care-related interests and manage conflicts in a manner that is transparent, proportional, and consistent. Any person involved in the development of an ACP clinical guideline or guidance statement must disclose all financial and intellectual interests related to health care from the previous 3 years. Persons complete disclosures at the start of their participation and are required to update them over the course of their involvement with the CGC, including before each CGC meeting. A DOI-COI Review and Management Panel reviews the disclosures; flags potential conflicts; grades the COI as low-, moderate-, or high-level; and manages the person's participation accordingly. A high-level COI results in recusal from authorship, voting, and all committee discussions. Participants with a moderate-level COI are recused from authorship and voting for clinically relevant topics but may participate in all discussions. A low-level COI results in no role restrictions. All disclosures and COI management decisions are publicly reported.

Conflict of interest. Why is it important?

Scientific publications are the main medium for distributing scientific contributions, be they original studies, reviews, clinical guidelines, editorials or consensus statements promoted by scientific societies, and they may be privately-, state- or industry-funded. The relationship between authors and sources of funding must be expressed transparently, truthfully and completely always ensuring a climate of reciprocal trust between journals and readers.

Academic conflict of interest

PURPOSE

We set out to summarize the current challenges in academic conflict of interest.

METHODS

This is a narrative review by a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of academic officers including deans of medical/pharmacy schools.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Disclosing conflict of interest has become the appropriate professional behavior since the 1990s in response to the necessity to fix moral and financial fences around medical activities. The nature of the conflict of interest is academic when either the conflict relates to academic duties and/or the nature of the interest is academic. People usually distinguish between real conflict of interest, when private interest overtly influences one's professional obligations; potential conflict of interest, when there is no obvious direct link between a person interests and current duties without ruling out that expected changes in duties cause a situation of conflict; and apparent conflict of interest, when the risk does not really exist, but serious doubts remain. Areas at risk of academic conflict of interest include peer review process for grant evaluation or journals, scientific communications such as elaborating and disseminating clinical guidelines, lecturing at meeting, advising decision-makers, teaching activities, and mentoring. The management of academic conflict of interest should consider actions in four domains, i.e., education, prevention, measures for enforcement and solving, and communication. Academic conflicts of interest are as frequent as financial conflicts but more difficult to identify and assess, and much less addressed in the literature. Generating more evidence from high-quality research is mandated to improve the management of academic and more generally non-financial conflicts of interest.

Conflicts of interest disclosure forms and management in critical care clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) require identification and careful management of conflicts of interest (COIs) among all participants in the guideline development. Furthermore, COIs are more common than anticipated. However, there are no universally accepted methods to identify and manage COIs.

OBJECTIVE

To describe and summarize the current COI disclosure forms and management policies in selected critical care professional societies that develop high-impact CPGs. In addition, we aim to provide suggestions to guideline developers on how to identify and manage different types of COIs.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and MEDLINE for CPGs published between 2013 and 2018 in English language and addressed general critical care topics. We then ranked the CPGs according to the numbers of citations and selected the first five critical care professional societies that sponsored the guidelines. We obtained the most recent COI declaration forms and management policies. Two reviewers abstracted data on different types of COI in each of the disclosure forms and management policies.

RESULTS

All selected professional critical care societies require that members declare direct financial COIs; four societies inquire specifically about intellectual COIs (involvement in primary research). Three out of five societies require members to disclose indirect institutional financial COIs; however, none inquire about other forms of institutional COI. We developed, by consensus, a streamlined framework to classify and manage different types of COIs.

CONCLUSION

The current COI disclosure forms of selected professional societies provide more attention to financial disclosures and COIs and less attention to detecting and managing intellectual COIs, while rarely addressing institutional COIs. We provide some suggestions for guideline developers on the classification and management of different COIs in the context of CPGs.

An analysis of methods used to synthesize evidence and grade recommendations in food-based dietary guidelines

Evidence-informed guideline development methods underpinned by systematic reviews ensure that guidelines are transparently developed, free from overt bias, and based on the best available evidence. Only recently has the nutrition field begun using these methods to develop public health nutrition guidelines. Given the importance of following an evidence-informed approach and recent advances in related methods, this study sought to describe the methods used to synthesize evidence, rate evidence quality, grade recommendations, and manage conflicts of interest (COIs) in national food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs). The Food and Agriculture Organization's FBDGs database was searched to identify the latest versions of FBDGs published from 2010 onward. Relevant data from 32 FBDGs were extracted, and the findings are presented narratively. This study shows that despite advances in evidence-informed methods for developing dietary guidelines, there are variations and deficiencies in methods used to review evidence, rate evidence quality, and grade recommendations. Dietary guidelines should follow systematic and transparent methods and be informed by the best available evidence, while considering important contextual factors and managing conflicts of interest.

Undisclosed conflicts of interest among biomedical textbook authors

BACKGROUND

Textbooks are a formative resource for health care providers during their education and are also an enduring reference for pathophysiology and treatment. Unlike the primary literature and clinical guidelines, biomedical textbook authors do not typically disclose potential financial conflicts of interest (pCoIs). The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the authors of textbooks used in the training of physicians, pharmacists, and dentists had appreciable undisclosed pCoIs in the form of patents or compensation received from pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies.

METHODS

The most recent editions of six medical textbooks, Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (_HarPIM), Katzung and Trevor's Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (_KatBCP), the American Osteopathic Association's Foundations of Osteopathic Medicine (_AOAFOM), Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy (_RemSPP), Koda-Kimble and Young's Applied Therapeutics (_KKYAT), and Yagiela's Pharmacology and Therapeutics for Dentistry (_YagPTD), were selected after consulting biomedical educators for evaluation. Author names (N = 1,152, 29.2% female) were submitted to databases to examine patents (Google Scholar) and compensation (ProPublica's Dollars for Docs [PDD]).

RESULTS

Authors were listed as inventors on 677 patents (maximum/author = 23), with three-quarters (74.9%) to _HarPIM authors. Females were significantly underrepresented among patent holders. The PDD 2009-2013 database revealed receipt of US$13.2 million, the majority to (83.9%) to _HarPIM. The maximum compensation per author was $869,413. The PDD 2014 database identified receipt of $6.8 million, with 50.4% of eligible authors receiving compensation. The maximum compensation received by a single author was $560,021. Cardiovascular authors were most likely to have a PDD entry and neurologic disorders authors were least likely.

CONCLUSION

An appreciable subset of biomedical authors have patents and have received remuneration from medical product companies and this information is not disclosed to readers. These findings indicate that full transparency of financial pCoI should become a standard practice among the authors of biomedical educational materials.

Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Guidelines: Update of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Policies and Procedures

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) provides independent, objective, and scientifically rigorous recommendations for clinical preventive services. A primary concern is to avoid even the appearance of members having special interests that might influence their ability to judge evidence and formulate unbiased recommendations. The conflicts of interest policy for the USPSTF is described, as is the formal process by which best practices were incorporated to update the policy. The USPSTF performed a literature review, conducted key informant interviews, and reviewed conflicts of interest policies of ten similar organizations. Important findings included transparency and public accessibility; full disclosure of financial relationships; disclosure of non-financial relationships (that create the potential for bias and compromise a member's objective judgment); disclosure of family members' conflicts of interests; and establishment of appropriate reporting periods. Controversies in best practices include the threshold of financial disclosures, ease of access to conflicts of interest policies and declarations, vague definition of non-financial biases, and request for family members' conflicts of interests (particularly those that are non-financial in nature). The USPSTF conflicts of interest policy includes disclosures for immediate family members, a clear non-financial conflicts of interest definition, long look-back period and application of the policy to prospective members. Conflicts of interest is solicited from all members every 4 months, formally reviewed, adjudicated, and made publicly available. The USPSTF conflicts of interest policy is publicly available as part of the USPSTF Procedure Manual. A continuous improvement process can be applied to conflicts of interest policies to enhance public trust in members of panels, such as the USPSTF, that produce clinical guidelines and recommendations.

Reporting of declarations and conflicts of interest in WHO guidelines can be further improved

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to examine the declaration of interests (DOIs), management of conflict of interest (COI), and the funders for World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We examined all Guidelines Review Committee (GRC)-approved WHO guidelines published in English from January 2007 (inception of the GRC) to November 2016. We obtained a list of all such guidelines from the GRC Secretariat. Characteristics of guidelines including funders and individual contributors' DOI were independently extracted by two researchers. Binary logistic regression was used to assess the association between declarations and the number of organizations involved in development.

RESULTS

A total of 176 guidelines fulfilled inclusion criteria, encompassing 14 clinical or public health fields. Funders were reported in 128 (73%) of the guidelines: the most common were governments. DOI for external contributors were reported in 157 (89%) of the guidelines: 75 (48%) indicated no contributors with COI, 57 (36%) reported contributors with COI, and 25 (16%) reported collecting DOI but not whether COI existed. Financial COI were reported more frequently than nonfinancial COI. Of 57 guidelines that reported COI, 45 (79%) indicated how the COI were managed.

CONCLUSION

The majority of WHO guidelines reported their funding sources and the DOI and COI of external contributors in their guideline documents. However, there is a need for improvement, in particular for reporting of funders and their role, declaration processes, and management of COI.

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult musculoskeletal ultrasound guidelines using the AGREE II tool: an EuroAIM initiative

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to evaluate the quality of published guidelines on musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSK-US) for adults.

METHODS

Between June and July 2016, we conducted an online search for MSK-US guidelines, which were evaluated by four independent readers blinded to each other using the AGREE II tool. A fifth independent reviewer calculated scores per each domain and agreement between reviewers' scores using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Five guidelines were included in this appraisal. They were published between 2001 and 2014. Our appraisal showed intermediate results, with four out of five guidelines scoring "average" as overall quality. Domain 1 (scope and purpose) achieved the highest result (total score = 71.1% ± 18.7%). Domain 6 (editorial independence) had the lowest score (total score = 26.3% ± 19.3%). Interobserver agreement was very good for all the evaluated guidelines (ICC ranged between 0.932 and 0.956).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, quality of MSK-US guidelines ranges from low to average when evaluated using the AGREE II tool. The editorial independence domain was the most critical, thus deserving more attention when developing future guidelines.

MAIN MESSAGES

• Four of five guidelines on MSK-US had an average quality level. • Scope/purpose had the highest score (71.1% ± 18.7%). • Editorial independence had the lowest score (26.3% ± 19.3%). • Interobserver agreement was very good (ranges: 0.932-0.956).

Is Article Methodological Quality Associated With Conflicts of Interest?: An Analysis of the Plastic Surgery Literature

PURPOSE

Conflicts of interest (COI) are an emerging area of discussion within the field of plastic surgery. Recently, several reports have found that research studies that disclose COI are associated with publication of positive outcomes. We hypothesize that this association is driven by higher-quality studies receiving industry funding. This study aimed to investigate the association between industry support and study methodological quality.

METHODS

We reviewed all entries in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery, and Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery within a 1-year period encompassing 2013. All clinical research articles were analyzed. Studies were evaluated blindly for methodology quality based on a validated scoring system. An ordinal logistic regression model was used to examine the association between methodology score and COI.

RESULTS

A total of 1474 articles were reviewed, of which 483 met our inclusion criteria. These articles underwent methodological quality scoring. Conflicts of interest were reported in 28 (5.8%) of these articles. After adjusting for article characteristics in the ordinal logistic regression analysis, there was no significant association between articles with COI and higher methodological scores (P = 0.7636).

CONCLUSIONS

Plastic surgery studies that disclose COI are not associated with higher methodological quality when compared with studies that do not disclose COI. These findings suggest that although the presence of COI is associated with positive findings, the association is not shown to be driven by higher-quality studies.

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines in kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are widely used to inform the development of protocols for clinical management. Previous work has demonstrated that the quality of CPGs varies widely. This systematic review aimed to determine the quality of CPGs in kidney transplantation in the UK.

METHODS

CPGs in kidney transplantation published between 2010 and 2017 were identified through searches of MEDLINE, NHS NICE Evidence, and websites of relevant UK societies. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool, three appraisers rated the quality of CPGs across six domains, the overall quality of each CPG, and whether it should be recommended for future use. Domain scores were calculated, and inter-rater reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was reported.

RESULTS

Thirteen CPGs met the inclusion criteria. The domain 'clarity of presentation' scored highest, followed closely by 'scope and purpose'. The poorest scoring domains were 'applicability' and 'editorial independence'. Editorial independence also had the widest range of scores. Of the 13 CPGs, one was not recommended for future use, seven were recommended for use with modifications, and five for future use with no need for modification. Mean overall CPG quality was 5 (range 3-6) of a maximum score of 7, and mean inter-rater reliability was substantial with an ICC of 0·71.

CONCLUSION

UK CPGs scored satisfactorily, although with wide variation in how well each domain scored both within and across CPGs. The quality of UK CPGs can still be improved.

A review of the quality of current diabetes clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To obtain an evaluation of current type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

Relevant guidelines were identified through a systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed. Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) country offices were also contacted to obtain national diabetes guidelines in use but not published/available online. Overall, 770 records were identified on MEDLINE/PubMed for citations published from 2008 to 2013. After an initial screening of these records, 146 were found to be guidelines related to diabetes. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to further refine the search and obtain a feasible number of guidelines for appraisal. Guideline evaluation was conducted by health professionals using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, which was developed to address the issue of variability in guideline quality and assesses the methodological rigor and transparency in which a guideline is developed. A total of 17 guidelines were selected and evaluated.

RESULTS

Ten guidelines scored ≥ 70% and seven guidelines scored ≥ 80%. The range was 21%-100%. The mean scores for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) country guidelines (n = 6) were compared to the mean scores for non-LAC country guidelines (n = 11). International guidelines consistently scored notably higher in all domains and overall quality than LAC guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this study's findings, it is clear that T2DM clinical practice guideline development requires further improvements, particularly with regard to the involvement of stakeholders and editorial independence. This issue is most apparent for LAC country guidelines, as their quality requires major improvement in almost all aspects of the AGREE II criteria. Continued efforts should be made to generate and update high-quality guidelines to improve the management of increasingly prevalent noncommunicable diseases, such as T2DM.

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative

Objectives

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely used technique to measure bone mineral density (BMD). Appropriate and accurate use of DXA is of great importance, and several guidelines have been developed in the last years. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of published guidelines on DXA for adults.

Methods

Between June and July 2016 we conducted an online search for DXA guidelines, which were evaluated by four independent readers blinded to each other using the AGREE II instrument. A fifth independent reviewer calculated scores per each domain and agreement between reviewers’ scores.

Results

Four out of 59 guidelines met inclusion criteria and were included. They were published between 2005 and 2014. Three out of four guidelines reached a high level of quality, having at least five domain scores higher than 60%. Domain 1 (Scope and Purpose) achieved the highest result (total score = 86.8 ± 3.7%). Domain 6 (Editorial Independence) had the lowest score (total score = 54.7 ± 12.5%). Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702).

Conclusions

Overall, the quality of DXA guidelines is satisfactory when evaluated using the AGREE II instrument. The Editorial Independence domain was the most critical, thus deserving more attention when developing future guidelines.

Main messages

• Three of four guidelines on DXA had a high quality level (>60%).

• Scope/purpose had the highest score (86.8 ± 3.7%).

• Editorial Independence had the lowest score (54.7 ± 12.5%).

• Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Citation Rate Predictors in the Plastic Surgery Literature

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to determine and characterize the scientific and nonscientific factors that influence the rate of article citation in the field of plastic surgery.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

We reviewed all entries in Annals of Plastic Surgery and Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007; and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2008. All scientific articles were analyzed and several article characteristics were extracted. The number of citations at 5 years was collected as the outcome variable. A multivariable analysis was performed to determine which variables were associated with higher citations rates.

RESULTS

A total of 2456 articles were identified of which only 908 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most studies were publications in the fields of reconstructive (26.3%) or pediatric/craniofacial (17.6%) surgery. The median number of citations 5 years from publication was 8. In the multivariable analysis, factors associated with higher citations rates were subspecialty field (p = 0.0003), disclosed conflict of interest (p = 0.04), number of authors (p = 0.04), and journal (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

We have found that higher level of evidence (or other study methodology factors) is not associated with higher citation rates. Instead, conflict of interest, subspecialty topic, journal, and number of authors are strong predictors of high citation rates in plastic surgery.

Appraising the methodological quality of the clinical practice guideline for diabetes mellitus using the AGREE II instrument: a methodological evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the methodological quality of the Palestinian Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Mellitus using the Translated Arabic Version of the AGREE II.

DESIGN

Methodological evaluation. A cross-cultural adaptation framework was followed to translate and develop a standardised Translated Arabic Version of the AGREE II.

SETTING

Palestinian Primary Healthcare Centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixteen appraisers independently evaluated the Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Mellitus using the Translated Arabic Version of the AGREE II.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Methodological quality of diabetic guideline.

RESULTS

The Translated Arabic Version of the AGREE II showed an acceptable reliability and validity. Internal consistency ranged between 0.67 and 0.88 (Cronbach's α). Intra-class coefficient among appraisers ranged between 0.56 and 0.88. The quality of this guideline is low. Both domains 'Scope and Purpose' and 'Clarity of Presentation' had the highest quality scores (66.7% and 61.5%, respectively), whereas the scores for 'Applicability', 'Stakeholder Involvement', 'Rigour of Development' and 'Editorial Independence' were the lowest (27%, 35%, 36.5%, and 40%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that the quality of this Clinical Practice Guideline is disappointingly low. To improve the quality of current and future guidelines, the AGREE II instrument is extremely recommended to be incorporated as a gold standard for developing, evaluating or updating the Palestinian Clinical Practice Guidelines. Future guidelines can be improved by setting specific strategies to overcome implementation barriers with respect to economic considerations, engaging of all relevant end-users and patients, ensuring a rigorous methodology for searching, selecting and synthesising the evidences and recommendations, and addressing potential conflict of interests within the development group.

Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Failed Antidepressant Treatment Response in Major Depressive Disorder, Dysthymia, and Subthreshold Depression in Adults

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review critically evaluated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treating adults with major depressive disorder, dysthymia, or subthreshold or minor depression for recommendations following inadequate response to first-line treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

METHOD

Searches for CPGs (January 2004 to November 2014) in English included 7 bibliographic databases and grey literature sources using CPG and depression as the keywords. Two raters selected CPGs on depression with a national scope. Data extraction included definitions of adequate response and recommended treatment options. Two raters assessed quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

RESULTS

From 46,908 citations, 3167 were screened at full text. From these 21 CPG were applicable to adults in primary care and outpatient settings. Five CPGs consider patients with dysthymia or subthreshold or minor depression. None provides recommendations for those who do not respond to first-line SSRI treatment. For adults with MDD, most CPGs do not define an "inadequate response" or provide specific suggestions regarding how to choose alternative medications when switching to an alternative antidepressant. There is variability between CPGs in recommending combination strategies. AGREE II ratings for stakeholder involvement in CPG development, editorial independence, and rigor of development are domains in which depression guidelines are often less robust.

CONCLUSIONS

About half of patients with depression require second-line treatment to achieve remission. Consistency and clarity in guidelines for second-line treatment of depression are therefore important for clinicians but lacking in most current guidelines. This may reflect a paucity of primary studies upon which to base conclusions.

Declaration and Handling of Conflicts of Interest in Guidelines: A Study of S1 Guidelines From German Specialist Societies From 2010-2013

BACKGROUND

Authors' conflicts of interest may affect the content of medical guidelines. In April 2010, the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) issued recommendations on how such conflicts of interest should be dealt with. Most AWMF guidelines are so-called S1 guidelines developed by informal consensus in a group of experts. We now present the first study to date on the management of conflicts of interest in S1 guidelines.

METHODS

On 2 December 2013, we selected the guidelines that had appeared from 1 November 2010 to 1 November 2013 among the 449 current S1 guidelines on the AWMF website. We extracted information about conflicts of interest from the guideline texts, reports, and/or conflict of interest statements and evaluated this information descriptively.

RESULTS

There were 234 S1 guidelines in this category, developed by a total of 2190 experts. For 7% (16/234) of the guidelines and 16% (354/2190) of the experts, no individual conflict of interest statement could be found. Where conflict of interest statements were available, conflicts of interest were often declared--in 98% (213/218) of the guidelines and by 85% (1565/1836) of the authors. The most common type of conflict of interest was membership in a specialist society or professional association (1571/1836, 86%). Half of the experts acknowledged a financial conflict of interest (911/1836, 50%). Conflicts of interest were more common among experts contributing to guidelines that mainly concerned treatment with drugs or other medical products than in guidelines that did not have an emphasis of this type (397/663, or 60%, versus 528/1173, or 45%). The conflicts of interest were assessed in 11% (25/234) of the guidelines, with practical consequences in a single case.

CONCLUSION

Conflicts of interest are often declared in the S1 guidelines of the AWMF, but they are only rarely assessed by external evaluators. Clear rules should be issued for how experts' declared conflicts of interest should be acted upon, whether they are of a financial nature or not.

Policies on Conflicts of Interest in Health Care Guideline Development: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether organisations that develop health care guidelines have conflict of interest (COI) policies and to review the content of the available COI policies.

METHODS

Survey and content analysis of COI policies available in English, French, Spanish, and Italian conducted between September 2014 and June 2015. A 24-item data abstraction instrument was created on the basis of guideline development standards.

RESULTS

The survey identified 29 organisations from 19 countries that met the inclusion criteria. From these organisations, 19 policies were eligible for inclusion in the content analysis. Over one-third of the policies (7/19, 37%) did not report or did not clearly report whether disclosure was a prerequisite for membership of the guideline panel. Strategies for the prevention of COI such as divestment were mentioned by only two organisations. Only 21% of policies (4/19) used criteria to determine whether an interest constitutes a COI and to assess the severity of the risk imposed.

CONCLUSIONS

The finding that some organisations, in contradiction of widely available standards, still do not have COI policies publicly available is concerning. Also troubling were the findings that some policies did not clearly report critical steps in obtaining, managing and communicating disclosure of relationships of interest. This in addition to the variability encountered in content and accessibility of COI policies may cause confusion and distrust among guideline users. It is in the interest of guideline users and developers to design an agreed-upon, comprehensive, clear, and accessible COI policy.

Non-Communicable Disease Clinical Practice Guidelines in Brazil: A Systematic Assessment of Methodological Quality and Transparency

BACKGROUND

Annually, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) kill 38 million people worldwide, with low and middle-income countries accounting for three-quarters of these deaths. High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are fundamental to improving NCD management. The present study evaluated the methodological rigor and transparency of Brazilian CPGs that recommend pharmacological treatment for the most prevalent NCDs.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for CPGs of the following NCDs: asthma, atrial fibrillation, benign prostatic hyperplasia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease and/or stable angina, dementia, depression, diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, osteoarthritis, and osteoporosis. CPGs comprising pharmacological treatment recommendations were included. No language or year restrictions were applied. CPGs were excluded if they were merely for local use and referred to NCDs not listed above. CPG quality was independently assessed by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation instrument, version II (AGREE II).

MAIN FINDINGS

"Scope and purpose" and "clarity and presentation" domains received the highest scores. Sixteen of 26 CPGs were classified as low quality, and none were classified as high overall quality. No CPG was recommended without modification (77% were not recommended at all). After 2009, 2 domain scores ("rigor of development" and "clarity and presentation") increased (61% and 73%, respectively). However, "rigor of development" was still rated < 30%.

CONCLUSION

Brazilian healthcare professionals should be concerned with CPG quality for the treatment of selected NCDs. Features that undermined AGREE II scores included the lack of a multidisciplinary team for the development group, no consideration of patients' preferences, insufficient information regarding literature searches, lack of selection criteria, formulating recommendations, authors' conflict of interest disclosures, and funding body influence.

Conflict of Interest Policies and Industry Relationships of Guideline Development Group Members: A Cross-Sectional Study of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Depression

Because of increased attention to the issue of trustworthiness of clinical practice guidelines, it may be that both transparency and management of industry associations of guideline development groups (GDGs) have improved. The purpose of the present study was to assess a) the disclosure requirements of GDGs in a cross-section of guidelines for major depression; and, b) the extent and type of conflicts of panel members. Treatment guidelines for major depression were identified and searched for conflict of interest policies and disclosure statements. Multi-modal screens for undeclared conflicts were also conducted. Fourteen guidelines with a total of 172 panel members were included in the analysis. Eleven of the 14 guidelines (78%) had a stated conflict of interest policy or disclosure statement, although the policies varied widely. Most (57%) of the guidelines were developed by panels that had members with industry financial ties to drug companies that manufacture antidepressant medication. However, only a minority of total panel members (18%) had such conflicts of interest. Drug company speakers bureau participation was the most common type of conflict. Although some progress has been made, organizations that develop guidelines should continue to work toward greater transparency and minimization of financial conflicts of interest.

Nondisclosure of Financial Interest in Clinical Practice Guideline Development: An Intractable Problem?

In a Perspective linked to Stelfox and colleagues, Hilda Bastian discusses the challenges of improving transparency and management of financial conflicts of interest among committees that develop guidelines for medical practice.

Financial Relationships between Organizations That Produce Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Biomedical Industry: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Financial relationships between organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines and biomedical companies are vulnerable to conflicts of interest. We sought to determine whether organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines have financial relationships with biomedical companies and whether there are associations between organizations' conflict of interest policies and recommendations and disclosures provided in guidelines.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey and review of websites of 95 national/international medical organizations that produced 290 clinical practice guidelines published on the National Guideline Clearinghouse website from January 1 to December 31, 2012. Survey responses were available for 68% (65/95) of organizations (167/290 guidelines, 58%), and websites were reviewed for 100% (95/95) of organizations (290/290 guidelines, 100%). In all, 63% (60/95) of organizations producing clinical practice guidelines reported receiving funds from a biomedical company; 80% (76/95) of organizations reported having a policy for managing conflicts of interest. Disclosure statements (disclosing presence or absence of financial relationships with biomedical companies) were available in 65% (188/290) of clinical practice guidelines for direct funding sources to produce the guideline, 51% (147/290) for financial relationships of the guideline committee members, and 1% (4/290) for financial relationships of the organizations producing the guidelines. Among all guidelines, 6% (18/290) disclosed direct funding by biomedical companies, 40% (117/290) disclosed financial relationships between committee members and biomedical companies (38% of guideline committee members, 773/2,043), and 1% (4/290) disclosed financial relationships between the organizations producing the guidelines and biomedical companies. In the survey responses, 60 organizations reported the procedures that they included in their conflict of interest policies (158 guidelines): guidelines produced by organizations reporting more comprehensive conflict of interest policies (per additional procedure, range 5-17) included fewer positive (rate ratio [RR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.95) and more negative (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.60) recommendations regarding patented biomedical products. The clinical practice guidelines produced by organizations reporting more comprehensive conflict of interest policies were also more likely to include disclosure statements for direct funding sources (odds ratio [OR] 1.31, 95% CI 1.10-1.56) and financial relationships of guideline committee members (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.09-1.79), but not financial relationships of the organizations (0 disclosures). Limitations of the study include the use of the National Guideline Clearinghouse as the single source of clinical practice guidelines and the self-report of survey responses and organizations' website postings.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial relationships between organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines and biomedical companies are common and infrequently disclosed in guidelines. Our study highlights the need for an effective policy to manage organizational conflicts of interest and disclosure of financial relationships.

Quality assessment of osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines for physical activity and safe movement: an AGREE II appraisal

Many osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines are published, and the extent to which physical activity and safe movement is addressed varies. To better inform clinical decision-making, a quality assessment and structured analysis of recommendations was undertaken. Guideline quality varied substantially, and improvement is necessary in physical activity and safe movement recommendations.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study is to survey available osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) containing physical activity and safe movement recommendations in order to assess the methodological quality with which they were developed. An analysis of the various physical activity and safe movement recommendations was conducted to determine variability between CPGs.

METHODS

An online literature search revealed 19 CPGs meeting our inclusion criteria. Three independent scorers evaluated CPG quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation version II (AGREE II) instrument. Two separate individuals used a standard table to extract relevant recommendations.

RESULTS

Intra-reviewer AGREE II score agreement ranged from fair to good (intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.34 to 0.65). The quality of the 19 included CPGs was variable (AGREE sub-scores: 14 to 100%). CPGs scored higher in the "scope and purpose" and "clarity of presentation" domains. They scored the lowest in "applicability" and "editorial independence." Four CPGs were classified as high quality, ten average quality, and five low quality. Most CPGs recommended weight-bearing, muscle-strengthening, and resistance exercises. Information on exercise dosage, progression, and contraindications was often absent. Immobility and movements involving spinal flexion and/or torsion were discouraged.

CONCLUSIONS

There were several high-quality CPGs; however, variability in quality and lack of specific parameters for implementation necessitates caution and critical examination by readers. CPG development groups should pay special attention to the clinical applicability of their CPGs as well as fully disclosing conflicts of interest. CPGs were in general an agreement regarding safe physical activity and safe movement recommendations. However, recommendations were often vague and the more specific recommendations were inconsistent between CPGs.

Potential Conflict of Interest and Bias in the RACGP's Smoking Cessation Guidelines: Are GPs Provided with the Best Advice on Smoking Cessation for their Patients?

Patient visits are an important opportunity for general practitioners (GPs) to discuss the risks of smoking and cessation strategies. In Australia, the guidelines on cessation published by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (the Guidelines) represent a key resource for GPs in this regard. The predominant message of the Guidelines is that pharmacotherapy should be recommended as first-line therapy for smokers expressing an interest in quitting. This, however, ignores established evidence about the success of unassisted quitting. Our analysis of the Guidelines identifies a number of potential conflicts of interest which may have affected the advice provided. These include extensive funding by the pharmaceutical industry of sources cited to support the recommendations, and relations between members of the Guidelines Content Advisory Group and the pharmaceutical industry. Recommendations issued by professional bodies have enormous potential impact upon public health and there is a need for the highest levels of scrutiny and transparency in their development. Information about research cited in guidelines should include funding sources, and developers should be free of obvious conflicts of interest. Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of global mortality. Concerns related to pharmaceutical industry funding of research, scientific integrity and recommendations on smoking cessation by medical advisory groups clearly have implications beyond Australia.

How to review a manuscript

BACKGROUND

Peer review of submitted manuscripts is widely perceived as a cornerstone of assuring quality in academic journals. However, in medical school and beyond, dermatologic surgeons receive minimal instruction in the methodology of critically reviewing new literature.

OBJECTIVE

To guide new or less experienced reviewers through the steps of assessing a manuscript for the journal. To clarify the most important elements of the review and to discuss common pitfalls and their avoidance.

METHODS

A stepwise template was suggested on how to review manuscripts.

RESULTS

An algorithmic approach to reviewing a paper can demystify the process, increase efficiency, and reduce the likelihood that important elements of the review will be omitted or overlooked. Nonetheless, this recommended approach is a starting point, and individual reviewers would be expected to modify it to reflect their particular preferences and to adapt it to specific papers.

CONCLUSION

Reviewing a manuscript for the journal is amenable to a simple algorithmic approach. Encouraging recent graduates and others to review for the journal by clarifying the process can further assist the editorial staff in selecting the best manuscripts and improving these before publication.

Guidelines International Network: Principles for Disclosure of Interests and Management of Conflicts in Guidelines

Conflicts of interest (COIs) have been defined by the American Thoracic Society as "a divergence between an individual's private interests and his or her professional obligations such that an independent observer might reasonably question whether the individual's professional actions or decisions are motivated by personal gain, such as direct financial, academic advancement, clinical revenue streams, or community standing." In the context of guideline development, the concerns are not simply about identifying and disclosing direct financial or indirect COIs. Despite this recognition, the management of COIs in guidelines is often unsatisfactory. In response to requests from its international membership and informed by existing syntheses of the evidence and policies of international organizations, the Guidelines International Network Board of Trustees developed guidance on the disclosure of interests and management of COIs. Current approaches are relatively similar throughout the guideline development community, with an increasing recognition of the importance of disclosing and managing indirect COIs. Although there are differences in detail among the approaches, the similarities allow for the formulation of 9 core principles for managing COIs. In formulating these principles, the Guidelines International Network Board of Trustees recognizes that COIs cannot be totally avoided when panel members are being chosen for certain guidelines or in certain settings; thus, the important issue is the management of COIs in a fair, judicious, transparent manner.