Universität zu Köln

dos Anjos, Dominique Rodil, Eisch, Eva and Mathes, Tim (2020). Financial contributions to guideline group members from industry: An analysis based on the US Open Payments database. Z. Evidenz Fortbild. Qual. Gesundheitswesen, 153. S. 39 - 44. MUNICH: ELSEVIER GMBH. ISSN 2212-0289

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Introduction: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are one of the most important sources to inform clinical decision-making. They contain recommendations to support treatment decisions. These recommendations should be free from bias and should only aim to increase patient benefit. To ensure this, recommendations should be free from bias caused by conflicts of interest. When conflicts of interest exist, they should be completely transparent. The aim of this study was to analyze the payments from pharmaceutical and medical device industry to clinical practice guideline panel members (GPM). In addition, we assessed the completeness and accuracy of the GPMs' conflict of interest statements. Methods: A manual search for international guidelines was conducted on the website of the National Guideline Clearinghouse. We included all available clinical practice guidelines published in 2017. We extracted the names of all guideline group members and identified the payments they had received from industry over the four years preceding the publication using the open payments database. Results: In total, 81 guidelines were identified. We found data on payments for 543 out of 659 GPMs. For 34% of the GPMs, there was no declaration of individual conflicts of interest in either the guideline or related documents. The sum of payments across all guidelines to all GPMs was 10,844,938 USD. The average payment amounted to 19,972 USD and the median 1,227 USD. Sixty two percent of GPMs received at least 500 USD. Of these, 17% stated that they had no conflict of interest to declare. Discussion: The amount of industrial payments in some subject areas raises doubt about the independence of guideline recommendations. Stricter rules are needed to avoid and manage conflicts of interest of guideline authors. The analysis carried out indicates that conflict of interest involving GPMs is a considerable problem. Conclusion: GPMs receive sizeable payments from industry. The payments are often inadequately disclosed or not disclosed at all. This threatens the objectivity of the recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Creators:	Creators Email ORCID ORCID Put Code dos Anjos, Dominique Rodil UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Eisch, Eva UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Mathes, Tim UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED
URN:	urn:nbn:de:hbz:38-324358
DOI:	10.1016/j.zefq.2020.05.003
Journal or Publication Title:	Z. Evidenz Fortbild. Qual. Gesundheitswesen
Volume:	153
Page Range:	S. 39 - 44
Date:	2020
Publisher:	ELSEVIER GMBH
Place of Publication:	MUNICH
ISSN:	2212-0289
Language:	German
Faculty:	Unspecified
Divisions:	Unspecified
Subjects:	no entry
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Keywords Language CONFLICTS Multiple languages Health Policy & Services Multiple languages
URI:	http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/id/eprint/32435