ArticlePloS one2015
Managing conflicts of interest in the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines programme: qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A literature review of non-financial conflicts of interest in healthcare research and publication.BMC medical ethics · 2025Review
- Brief report of a pilot test of an audit tool for assurance of Declarations of Interest policy in NICE COVID-19 guidance production.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2025Article
- Assessment of Knowledge of Health Economics among Healthcare Professionals in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Assessing the Content Validity, Acceptability, and Feasibility of the Hypo-METRICS App: Survey and Interview Study.JMIR diabetes · 2023Article
- Article
- The RAND/PPMD Patient-Centeredness Method: a novel online approach to engaging patients and their representatives in guideline development.European journal for person centered healthcare · 2019Article
- Reporting of conflicts of interest and of sponsorship of guidelines in anaesthesiology. A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2019Article
- White paper: statement on conflicts of interest.Intensive care medicine · 2018Article
- Article
- Review
- Engaging Patients and Caregivers Managing Rare Diseases to Improve the Methods of Clinical Guideline Development: A Research Protocol.JMIR research protocols · 2017Article
- Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey.BMJ open · 2016Article
- Nondisclosure of Financial Interest in Clinical Practice Guideline Development: An Intractable Problem?PLoS medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is international concern that conflicts of interest (COI) may bias clinical guideline development and render it untrustworthy. Guideline COI policies exist with the aim of reducing this bias but it is not known how such policies are interpreted and used by guideline producing organisations. This study sought to determine how conflicts of interest (COIs) are disclosed and managed by a national clinical guideline developer (NICE: the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence).
methodsQualitative study using semi-structured telephone interviews with 14 key informants: 8 senior staff of NICE's guideline development centres and 6 chairs of guideline development groups (GDGs). We conducted a thematic analysis.
resultsParticipants regard the NICE COI policy as comprehensive leading to transparent and independent guidance. The application of the NICE COI policy is, however, not straightforward and clarity could be improved. Disclosure of COI relies on self reporting and guideline developers have to take "on trust" the information they receive, certain types of COI (non-financial) are difficult to categorise and manage and disclosed COI can impact on the ability to recruit clinical experts to GDGs. Participants considered it both disruptive and stressful to exclude members from GDG meetings when required by the COI policy. Nonetheless the impact of this disruption can be minimised with good group chairing skills.
conclusionsWe consider that the successful implementation of a COI policy in clinical guideline development requires clear policies and procedures, appropriate training of GDG chairs and an evaluation of how the policy is used in practice.
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.