ArticlePloS one2021
Analysis of conflict of interest policies among organizations producing clinical practice guidelines.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Industry payments and auditability of financial conflicts of interest in US gastroenterology and hepatology clinical practice guidelines: a cross-sectional analysis.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Evaluating conflict-of-interest governance among Canadian medical societies using a novel assessment tool: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional review of policies on conflicts of interest and funding in the development manuals of practice guidelines.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2025Article
- Assessing TDApp: An AI-based clinical decision support system for ADHD treatment recommendations.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Financial conflicts of interest among authors of clinical practice guideline for headache disorders in Japan.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Gaining Trust: Lessons and Opportunities for Artificial Intelligence in Health Care.The Permanente journal · 2024Article
- Pharmaceutical industry payments to authors of neurology clinical practice guidelines in Japan: A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Discrepancies in Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures Among Physicians Receiving Compensation for Monoclonal Antibody Drugs.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- Conflicts of Interest Among Cardiology Clinical Practice Guideline Authors in Japan.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Explaining the concepts and examples of conflict of interest and its management in the medical laboratory system of Iran: A scoping review.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Association between Conflicts of Interest Disclosure and Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Japan: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Intellectual conflicts of interest among cardiology and pulmonology clinical practice guidelines.PloS one · 2023Article
- Osteoarthritis Treatment Guidelines from Six Professional Societies: Similarities and Differences.Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America · 2022Review
- A cross-sectional examination of conflict-of-interest disclosures of physician-authors publishing in high-impact US medical journals.BMJ open · 2022Article
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
backgroundConflicts of interest (COI) jeopardize the validity of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). When the Institute of Medicine promulgated COI policies in 2011, few organizations met these requirements, but it is unknown if organizations have improved their policies since that time. We sought to evaluate current adherence to IOM standards of COI policies. METHODS AND
findingsWe conducted a retrospective document review of COI policies and CPGs from organizations that published five or more CPGs between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Organizations were identified via CPG databases. COI policies were obtained from an internet search. We collected data on i) the number of organizations that have COI policies specific to CPG development, ii) the number of policies meeting each IOM standard and iii) the number of IOM standards met by each policy. COI disclosures from five CPGs of each organization were assessed for adherence to IOM standards. Among the 46 organizations that published 5 or more CPGs, 36 (78%) had a COI policy. Standard 2.2b (requiring divestment of financial COI) was met least frequently, by 2 of 36 (6%) organizations. Standard 2.1 (requiring disclosure of COI) was met most frequently, by 33 of 36 (92%) organizations. A total of 31 of 36 (86%) organizations met 4 or fewer of the 7 IOM standards. Among the 16 organizations limiting COI to a minority of the CPG panel (standard 2.4c) and the 15 organizations prohibiting COI among chairs or co-chairs (standard 2.4d), 12 (75%) and 10 (67%) organizations violated the respective standard in at least one CPG. The main limitations of our study are the exclusion of organizations producing fewer CPGs and ability to assess only publicly available policies.
conclusionAmong organizations producing CPGs, COI policies frequently do not meet IOM standards, and organizations often violate their own policies. These shortcomings may undermine the public trust in and thus the utility of CPGs. CPG-producing organizations should improve their COI policies and their strategies to manage COI to increase the trustworthiness of CPGs.
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.