ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2025
A cross-sectional review of policies on conflicts of interest and funding in the development manuals of practice guidelines.
Article in Clinical and public health guidelines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Policies on conflicts of interest (COI) and funding are essential to reduce the risk of bias in the guideline development process. Objective: To collate and review the content related to COI and funding policies from guideline development handbooks. Study design and setting: We searched PubMed from its inception until September 10, 2021, websites of key guideline development organizations and Google for guideline development manuals that included COI or funding policies, and performed a cross-sectional review. Results: Fifty-seven guideline development manuals were included. Amongst the 54 handbooks containing a COI policy, all required disclosure of interests. Nineteen (35.2%) manuals defined what constitutes a COI, and 52 (96.3%) specified who should disclose their interests. Thirty-four (63.0%) manuals recommended an assessment of disclosed interests to determine whether a COI existed, and all of these specified who should perform this review. Thirty-five (64.8%) manuals addressed the management of COI, of which 26 (74.3%) indicated who should manage COI and 29 (82.9%) reported specific management measures. Twenty-eight (51.8%) manuals addressed the publication of COI, all recommending that these be publicly accessible. Of the 28 manuals that provided guidance on funding, eight (28.6%) required reporting of funding sources; 14 (50.0%) required that the guideline authors state that the funders' perspectives and interests did not affect the final recommendations; eight (28.6%) specified which kind of funding the guidelines should not accept; and five (17.9%) recommended that the role of funders be restricted. Conclusions: Policies in guideline manuals report a variety of different elements related to COI and funding. However, a considerable part of the policies did not report precisely what constitutes a COI, the key steps for COI management, or address the sources, influence and acceptability of funding.
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.