ReviewSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2017
[Impact of conflicts of interest on guideline recommendations : Empirical study within the second update of the German interdisciplinary S3 guidelines on fibromyalgia syndrome].
Review in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient and public involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Systematic Review.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2021Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe impact of conflicts of interest (COI) in general and of academic COI in particular on guideline recommendations in pain medicine has not yet been studied. Whether the inclusion of patients and of representatives of all relevant healthcare professions into a guidelines group is protective against a systematic bias of decisions of a guidelines group is currently unknown.
methodsAll members of the guidelines group declared their COI before the consensus conferences by a standard form according to the rules and standards of the Association of the German Medical and Scientific Societies. The acceptance or rejection and the strength of consensus of recommendations of the second update of the interdisciplinary guidelines on fibromyalgia syndrome was analyzed twice by first including and then excluding the votes of the guideline group members with COI related to a recommendation from the results of anonymous voting via an internet platform.
resultsA total of 42 persons from different healthcare professions and patients participated in the online voting on recommendations. Of the participants 29% had no COI according to the predefined criteria, 53% met the criteria of academic and 33% the criteria of financial COI. In the case of exclusion of participants with a COI related to a specific recommendation, 2 out of 23 recommendations (homeopathy, tramadol) were not accepted. In all votes, there were more participants without COI than with COI.
conclusionAcademic COI were more frequent than financial COI in the second update of the German interdisciplinary guidelines group on fibromyalgia syndrome. The impact of COI on guideline recommendations was low. The inclusion of patients and of all relevant healthcare professionals into a guidelines group is a protective factor against the influence of COI on guideline recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28455823What 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.