scholarly journals Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines*

2018 ◽  
Vol 103 (12) ◽  
pp. 4333-4338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S Irwig ◽  
Mabel Kyinn ◽  
Mason C Shefa
PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. e0182856 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yidan Lu ◽  
Derek J. Jones ◽  
Nour Sharara ◽  
Tonya Kaltenbach ◽  
Loren Laine ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 103 (12) ◽  
pp. 4339-4342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R McCartney ◽  
Clifford J Rosen

Abstract An analysis of the Endocrine Society’s clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published from 2010 to 2017—presented by Irwig et al. in the current issue of The Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism—suggested that the Endocrine Society met five of seven National Academy of Medicine (NAM) standards concerning financial conflicts of interest in CPGs. As current contributors to the Endocrine Society’s CPG efforts, we offer additional context related to the 2011 NAM standards and the current environment concerning industry support in medicine, and we comment on the nature of industry support received by the Society’s CPG authors according to Irwig and colleagues’ analysis of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Open Payments database. Perhaps most importantly, we outline the Society’s recent and ongoing efforts to enhance the value of its CPGs. Such efforts include a 2016 revision of CPG author conflict of interest rules—a change that was invisible to the investigatory methods used by Irwig et al.—in addition to other processes designed to enhance CPG objectivity. We conclude our commentary by recognizing that good-faith attempts to enhance transparency and to reduce conflicts of interest (real or apparent) in CPGs will ultimately serve the best interests of patients and providers; we confirm the Endocrine Society’s resolute commitment to providing high-quality, evidence-based clinical guidance via a CPG development process that faithfully accords with current CPG best practices.


2019 ◽  
Vol 156 (6) ◽  
pp. S-254-S-255
Author(s):  
Alexa Sasson ◽  
Rishad Khan ◽  
Michael A. Scaffidi ◽  
Rishi Bansal ◽  
Jeevan Dhillon ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariadna Tibau ◽  
Philippe L. Bedard ◽  
Amirrtha Srikanthan ◽  
Josee-Lyne Ethier ◽  
Francisco E. Vera-Badillo ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document