SynthesisPloS one2011
Conflict of interest in clinical practice guideline development: a systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
92 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 219 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emergency and sequalae management of traumatic dental injuries: a systematic survey of clinical practice guidelines.BMC oral health · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Dental caries prevention in children and adolescents: a systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines.Clinical oral investigations · 2018Pooled it
- Standardized clinical assessment and management plans revisited: lessons learned from a decade of implementation.Health affairs scholar · 2026Review
- From global guidelines for cardio-kidney-metabolic diseases management to national implementation: perspectives from the guideline workshop taskforce.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2026Article
- Provenance and Funding of Extremely Cited Biomedical Articles Published Between 2003 and 2024.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- Surgical treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction: an analysis and meta-synthesis of available guidelines.BMC urology · 2025Review
- A cross-sectional review of policies on conflicts of interest and funding in the development manuals of practice guidelines.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2025Article
- ASH Guideline Oversight Subcommittee Response to Jacobs et al regarding Industry Payments to ASH Guideline Panelists.Blood advances · 2024Article
- Explaining the concepts and examples of conflict of interest and its management in the medical laboratory system of Iran: A scoping review.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Article
- A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Caries Prevention following the AGREE II Checklist.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Developing TCM clinical practice guidelines: A comparison between traditional Chinese medicine and western medicine.Integrative medicine research · 2023Article
- Transparency of clinical practice guideline funding: a cross-sectional analysis of the German AWMF registry.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for motor neuron diseases or related disorders using the AGREE II instrument.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Intellectual conflicts of interest among cardiology and pulmonology clinical practice guidelines.PloS one · 2023Article
- Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a scoping review.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Ensuring quality in contextualised cancer management guidelines for resource-constraint settings: using a systematic approach.BMJ global health · 2022Article
- More than one third of clinical practice guidelines on low back pain overlap in AGREE II appraisals. Research wasted?BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere 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
findingsWe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.