ArticleBMJ open2023
Financial conflicts of interest among US physician authors of 2020 clinical practice guidelines: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Doctors' Conflict-of-Interest; What it Looks Like and What to do About it.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2026Article
- Level of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations in US Medical Society Clinical Practice Guidelines, 2019-2023: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Reply to the Letter to the Editor: On Patient Safety: It Is Time to Rethink Gabapentin.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
- Article
- Trends in enforcement of National Comprehensive Cancer Network financial conflict of interest policy.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- Industry payments to American Society of Hematology Clinical Practice Guideline authors.Blood advances · 2024Article
- Trust in Physicians and Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a 50-State Survey of US Adults.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Article
- Funding of evidence included within public comments submitted to inform Medicare national coverage determinations.Health affairs scholar · 2024Article
- Extent, transparency and impact of industry funding for pelvic mesh research: a review of the literature.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the prevalence and accuracy of industry-related financial conflict of interest (COI) disclosures among US physician guideline authors.
designCross-sectional study.
settingClinical practice guidelines published by the Council of Medical Specialty Societies in 2020.
participantsUS physician guideline authors.
main outcome measuresFinancial COI disclosures, both self-reported and determined using Open Payments data.
resultsAmong 270 US physician authors of 20 clinical practice guidelines, 101 (37.4%) disclosed industry-related financial COIs, whereas 199 (73.7%) were found to have received payments from industry when accounting for payments disclosed through Open Payments. The median payments received by authors during the 3-year period was US$27 451 (IQR, US$1385-US$254 677). Comparing authors' self-disclosures with Open Payments, 72 (26.7%) of the authors accurately disclosed their financial COIs, including 68 (25.2%) accurately disclosing no financial COIs and 4 (1.5%) accurately disclosing a financial COI. In contrast, 101 (37.4%) disclosed no financial COIs and were found to have received payments from industry, 23 (8.5%) disclosed a financial COI but had under-reported payments received from industry, 14 (5.2%) disclosed a financial COI but had over-reported payments received from industry and 60 (22.2%) disclosed a financial COI but were found to have both under-reported and over-reported payments received from industry. We found that inaccurate COI disclosure was more frequent among professors compared with non-professors (81.9% vs 63.5%; p<0.001) and among males compared with females (77.7% vs 64.8%; p=0.02). The accuracy of disclosures also varied among medical professional societies (p<0.001).
conclusionsFinancial relationships with industry are common among US physician authors of clinical practice guidelines and are often not accurately disclosed. To ensure high-quality guidelines and unbiased recommendations, more effort is needed to minimise existing COIs and improve disclosure accuracy among panel members.
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.