Conflicts of Interest and the Trustworthiness of Clinical Practice Guidelines.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Management for children and adolescents with overweight and obesity: a recommendations mapping.Pediatric research · 2025
   Pooled it
2. Evaluation of clinical guideline implementations for cardiovascular diseases by German general practitioners-Results of a web-based survey.Frontiers in medicine · 2026
   Article
3. Reporting guidelines for chatbot health advice studies: explanation and elaboration for the Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART).BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Evaluation of Conflicts of Interest among Participants of the Japanese Nephrology Clinical Practice Guideline.2022

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as