Log in | Register

Conflicts of interest disclosure forms and management in critical care clinical practice guidelines

Waleed Alhazzani| Kimberley Lewis| Roman Jaeschke| Bram Rochwerg| Morten Hylander Møller| Laura Evans| Kevin C. Wilson| Sheena Patel| Craig M. Coopersmith| Maurizio Cecconi| Gordon Guyatt| Elie A. Akl
Review
Volume 44, Issue 10 / October , 2018

Pages 1691 - 1698

Abstract

Background

Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) require identification and careful management of conflicts of interest (COIs) among all participants in the guideline development. Furthermore, COIs are more common than anticipated. However, there are no universally accepted methods to identify and manage COIs.

Objective

To describe and summarize the current COI disclosure forms and management policies in selected critical care professional societies that develop high-impact CPGs. In addition, we aim to provide suggestions to guideline developers on how to identify and manage different types of COIs.

Methods

We searched PubMed and MEDLINE for CPGs published between 2013 and 2018 in English language and addressed general critical care topics. We then ranked the CPGs according to the numbers of citations and selected the first five critical care professional societies that sponsored the guidelines. We obtained the most recent COI declaration forms and management policies. Two reviewers abstracted data on different types of COI in each of the disclosure forms and management policies.

Results

All selected professional critical care societies require that members declare direct financial COIs; four societies inquire specifically about intellectual COIs (involvement in primary research). Three out of five societies require members to disclose indirect institutional financial COIs; however, none inquire about other forms of institutional COI. We developed, by consensus, a streamlined framework to classify and manage different types of COIs.

Conclusion

The current COI disclosure forms of selected professional societies provide more attention to financial disclosures and COIs and less attention to detecting and managing intellectual COIs, while rarely addressing institutional COIs. We provide some suggestions for guideline developers on the classification and management of different COIs in the context of CPGs.

Keywords

References

  1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336(7650):924–926
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  2. Schunemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Etxeandia I et al (2014) Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise. CMAJ 186(3):E123–E142
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  3. Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E (eds) (2011) Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. National Academies Press, Washington (DC)
  4. Schunemann HJ, Osborne M, Moss J et al (2009) An official American Thoracic Society Policy statement: managing conflict of interest in professional societies. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 180(6):564–580
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  5. Schunemann HJ, Al-Ansary LA, Forland F et al (2015) Guidelines international network: principles for disclosure of interests and management of conflicts in guidelines. Ann Intern Med 163(7):548–553
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  6. Norris SL, Burda BU, Holmer HK et al (2012) Author’s specialty and conflicts of interest contribute to conflicting guidelines for screening mammography. J Clin Epidemiol 65(7):725–733
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  7. Lenzer J (2002) Alteplase for stroke: money and optimistic claims buttress the “brain attack” campaign. BMJ 324(7339):723–729
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  8. Eichacker PQ, Natanson C, Danner RL (2006) Surviving sepsis–practice guidelines, marketing campaigns, and Eli Lilly. New Engl J Med 355(16):1640–1642
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  9. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W et al (2017) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med 43(3):304–377
  10. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A et al (2013) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012. Intensive Care Med 39(2):165–228
  11. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM et al (2008) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Intensive Care Med 34(1):17–60
  12. Guyatt G, Akl EA, Hirsh J et al (2010) The vexing problem of guidelines and conflict of interest: a potential solution. Ann Intern Med 152(11):738–741
    • View reference on publisher's website
  13. Akl EA, El-Hachem P, Abou-Haidar H, Neumann I, Schunemann HJ, Guyatt GH (2014) Considering intellectual, in addition to financial, conflicts of interest proved important in a clinical practice guideline: a descriptive study. J Clin Epidemiol 67(11):1222–1228
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  14. Akl EA, Karl R, Guyatt GH (2012) Methodologists and context experts disagreed regarding managing conflicts of interest of clinical practice guidelines panels. J Clin Epidemiol 65(7):734–739
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  15. Okike K, Kocher MS, Wei EX, Mehlman CT, Bhandari M (2009) Accuracy of conflict-of-interest disclosures reported by physicians. New Engl J Med 361(15):1466–1474
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  16. Neuman J, Korenstein D, Ross JS, Keyhani S (2011) Prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among panel members producing clinical practice guidelines in Canada and United States: cross sectional study. BMJ 343:d5621
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  17. Norris SL, Holmer HK, Ogden LA, Selph SS, Fu R (2012) Conflict of interest disclosures for clinical practice guidelines in the national guideline clearinghouse. PLoS One 7(11):e47343
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  18. Norris SL, Holmer HK, Burda BU, Ogden LA, Fu R (2012) Conflict of interest policies for organizations producing a large number of clinical practice guidelines. PLoS One 7(5):e37413
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  19. Neumann I, Akl EA, Valdes M et al (2013) Low anonymous voting compliance with the novel policy for managing conflicts of interest implemented in the 9th version of the American College of Chest Physicians antithrombotic guidelines. Chest 144(4):1111–1116
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  20. Hakoum MB, Anouti S, Al-Gibbawi M et al (2016) Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey. BMJ Open 6(8):e011997
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  21. Hakoum MB, Jouni N, Abou-Jaoude EA et al (2017) Authors of clinical trials reported individual and financial conflicts of interest more frequently than institutional and nonfinancial ones: a methodological survey. J Clin Epidemiol 87:78–86
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  22. Hirsh J, Guyatt G, Albers GW, Harrington R, Schunemann HJ (2008) Executive summary: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (8th Edition). Chest 133(6 Suppl):71S–109S
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  23. Guyatt GH, Akl EA, Crowther M, Schunemann HJ, Gutterman DD, Lewis SZ (2012) Introduction to the ninth edition: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 141(2 Suppl):48S–52S
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  24. Agoritsas T, Neumann I, Mendoza C, Guyatt GH (2017) Guideline conflict of interest management and methodology heavily impacts on the strength of recommendations: comparison between two iterations of the American College of Chest Physicians antithrombotic guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 81:141–143
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed

Sign In

Connect with ICM

Top 5 Articles Editors Picks Supplement