ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2013
Does the pharmaceutical industry influence guidelines?: two examples from Germany.
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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Pooled 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
- Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- When should acute exacerbations of COPD be treated with systemic corticosteroids and antibiotics in primary care: a systematic review of current COPD guidelines.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Transparency of clinical practice guideline funding: a cross-sectional analysis of the German AWMF registry.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Article
- Self-reported Financial Conflict of Interest in Nephrology Clinical Practice Guidelines.Kidney international reports · 2021Article
- A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- Management of financial conflicts of interests in clinical practice guidelines in Germany: results from the public database GuidelineWatch.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- The relationship between the physician and pharmaceutical industry: background ethics and regulation proposals.Croatian medical journal · 2016Article
- Declaration and Handling of Conflicts of Interest in Guidelines: A Study of S1 Guidelines From German Specialist Societies From 2010-2013.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015Article
- Transparency is key.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014Article
- Manipulated evidence?Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014Article
- Information advantage or conflicts of interest?Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014Article
- No robust argument.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014Article
- Confirming the hypothesis at any cost?Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014Article
- In reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014Article
- Conflicts of interest--an ever present challenge.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on byIn reply.2014
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.