IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002029.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Financial Relationships between Organizations That Produce Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Biomedical Industry: A Cross-Sectional Study

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Campsall
  • Kate Colizza
  • Sharon Straus
  • Henry T Stelfox

Abstract

Background: Financial relationships between organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines and biomedical companies are vulnerable to conflicts of interest. We sought to determine whether organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines have financial relationships with biomedical companies and whether there are associations between organizations’ conflict of interest policies and recommendations and disclosures provided in guidelines. Methods and Findings: We conducted a cross-sectional survey and review of websites of 95 national/international medical organizations that produced 290 clinical practice guidelines published on the National Guideline Clearinghouse website from January 1 to December 31, 2012. Survey responses were available for 68% (65/95) of organizations (167/290 guidelines, 58%), and websites were reviewed for 100% (95/95) of organizations (290/290 guidelines, 100%). In all, 63% (60/95) of organizations producing clinical practice guidelines reported receiving funds from a biomedical company; 80% (76/95) of organizations reported having a policy for managing conflicts of interest. Disclosure statements (disclosing presence or absence of financial relationships with biomedical companies) were available in 65% (188/290) of clinical practice guidelines for direct funding sources to produce the guideline, 51% (147/290) for financial relationships of the guideline committee members, and 1% (4/290) for financial relationships of the organizations producing the guidelines. Among all guidelines, 6% (18/290) disclosed direct funding by biomedical companies, 40% (117/290) disclosed financial relationships between committee members and biomedical companies (38% of guideline committee members, 773/2,043), and 1% (4/290) disclosed financial relationships between the organizations producing the guidelines and biomedical companies. In the survey responses, 60 organizations reported the procedures that they included in their conflict of interest policies (158 guidelines): guidelines produced by organizations reporting more comprehensive conflict of interest policies (per additional procedure, range 5–17) included fewer positive (rate ratio [RR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.86–0.95) and more negative (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09–1.60) recommendations regarding patented biomedical products. The clinical practice guidelines produced by organizations reporting more comprehensive conflict of interest policies were also more likely to include disclosure statements for direct funding sources (odds ratio [OR] 1.31, 95% CI 1.10–1.56) and financial relationships of guideline committee members (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.09–1.79), but not financial relationships of the organizations (0 disclosures). Limitations of the study include the use of the National Guideline Clearinghouse as the single source of clinical practice guidelines and the self-report of survey responses and organizations’ website postings. Conclusions: Financial relationships between organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines and biomedical companies are common and infrequently disclosed in guidelines. Our study highlights the need for an effective policy to manage organizational conflicts of interest and disclosure of financial relationships. In this cross sectional study, Henry Stelfox and colleagues examine conflict of interest policies for organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines disclosing their relationships with biomedical companies.Why Was This Study Done?: What Did the Researchers Do and Find?: What Do These Findings Mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Campsall & Kate Colizza & Sharon Straus & Henry T Stelfox, 2016. "Financial Relationships between Organizations That Produce Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Biomedical Industry: A Cross-Sectional Study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002029
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002029
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002029
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002029&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002029?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sheryl Spithoff & Pamela Leece & Frank Sullivan & Nav Persaud & Peter Belesiotis & Liane Steiner, 2020. "Drivers of the opioid crisis: An appraisal of financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guideline panels at the peak of opioid prescribing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Damien Wyssa & Martin R Tramèr & Nadia Elia, 2019. "Reporting of conflicts of interest and of sponsorship of guidelines in anaesthesiology. A cross-sectional study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-13, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002029. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.