Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24078837›Full record

ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2013

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

Gisela Schott, Claudia Dünnweber, Bernd Mühlbauer, Wilhelm Niebling, Henry Pachl, Wolf-Dieter Ludwig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Transparency is key.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014
    Article
  14. Manipulated evidence?Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014
    Article
  15. Information advantage or conflicts of interest?Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014
    Article
  16. No robust argument.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014
    Article
  17. Confirming the hypothesis at any cost?Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014
    Article
  18. In reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014
    Article
  19. Conflicts of interest--an ever present challenge.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Gisela SchottDrug Commission of the German Medical Association, Berlin.
Claudia Dünnweber
Bernd Mühlbauer
Wilhelm Niebling
Henry Pachl
Wolf-Dieter Ludwig
Arzneimittelkommission der deutschen ÄrzteschaftGerman Medical Association · DEBerlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsA 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionPublic 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.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestPractice Guidelines as TopicClinical Trials as TopicDrug IndustryGermanyGuideline AdherenceOutcome Assessment, Health CarePeriodicals as TopicTruth Disclosure

Identifiers

PMID24078837
PMCPMC3783818
OpenAlexW1545870724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.