ArticleCMAJ open
Declarations of interest by members of Health Canada's special advisory committees and panels: a descriptive study.
Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Conflict of interest declarations in published healthcare reports and the need for supportive legislative frameworks: focus on hospital pharmacists' research activity worldwide.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2023Article
- Article
- COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force and Conflicts of Interest.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2022Article
- Mapping conflict of interests: scoping review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Article
- Regulators, Pivotal Clinical Trials, and Drug Regulation in the Age of COVID-19.International journal of health services : planning, administration, evaluation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth Canada supplements its in-house expertise on pharmacotherapy and pharmaceutical policy through the use of scientific/expert advisory committees and scientific/expert advisory panels. This study was undertaken to examine the interests of the members of these Health Canada advisory bodies.
methodsThis was an observational study of the financial and intellectual interests of members of Health Canada's scientific/expert advisory committees and panels. The following information was extracted from Health Canada websites in December 2018: member's name, name of committee/panel, direct and indirect financial interests, and intellectual interests. Information extracted about the committees and panels included the number of meetings for which a record of proceedings was available and the topics discussed at the meetings.
resultsOf 81 unique committee and panel members, 12 declared a direct financial interest, 56 an indirect financial interest and 65 an intellectual interest. Five of 11 committees and panels had people who declared a direct financial interest. All 11 advisory bodies had members who declared indirect financial interests (
interpretationOnly a minority of members of Health Canada's advisory committees and panels declared direct financial interests but the majority of members of a majority of the advisory bodies declared indirect financial and intellectual interests. Because of the lack of individual voting records it was not possible to determine if financial or intellectual interests influenced voting patterns.
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.