Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jun 8;192(23):E617-E625.
doi: 10.1503/cmaj.191737.

Reporting of financial conflicts of interest by Canadian clinical practice guideline producers: a descriptive study

Affiliations

Reporting of financial conflicts of interest by Canadian clinical practice guideline producers: a descriptive study

Katharine Elder et al. CMAJ. .

Abstract

Background: The producers of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may not disclose industry funding in their CPGs. We reviewed Canadian national CPGs to examine the existence and disclosure of industry-related organizational funding in the CPGs, financial conflicts of interest of committee members and organizational procedures for managing financial conflicts of interest.

Methods: For this descriptive study, we searched the asset map of the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Evidence Alliance and the CPG Infobase for CPGs published between Jan. 1, 2016, and Nov. 30, 2018. Eligible guidelines had to have a national focus and either a first-line drug recommendation or a screening recommendation leading to drug treatment. One investigator reviewed all CPG titles to exclude those that were clearly ineligible. Two reviewers independently reviewed all remaining guidelines and extracted data. We analyzed the data descriptively.

Results: We included 21 CPGs: 3 from government-sponsored organizations, 9 from disease or condition interest groups and 9 from medical professional societies. None of the 3 government-sponsored organizations reported industry funding, and none of their committee members disclosed financial conflicts of interest. Among the 18 disease or condition interest groups and medical professional societies, 14 (93%) of the 15 that disclosed funding sources on websites (3 did not disclose) reported organizational funding from industry, but none disclosed this information in the CPGs; 12 (86%) of the 14 with conflict-of-interest disclosure statements in the CPG (4 did not include disclosures) had at least 1 committee member with a financial conflict (mean proportion of committee members with a conflict 56%); and for all 8 CPGs with identifiable chairs or cochairs (chairs or cochairs not reported for 10) at least 1 of these people had a financial conflict of interest. None of the guidelines described a plan to manage organizational financial conflicts of interest.

Interpretation: Canadian CPGs are vulnerable to industry influence through funding of producers of guidelines and through the financial conflicts of interest of committee members. The CPG producers that receive industry funding should disclose organizational financial conflicts in the CPGs, should engage independent oversight committees and should restrict voting on recommendations to guideline panelists who have no financial conflicts.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: Katharine Elder formerly worked as the administrator of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), which was the producer of one guideline included in the present study (cited as reference 41). Brett Thombs, Ainsley Moore and Sharon Straus are the chair, vice-chair and director of knowledge translation, respectively, for the CTFPHC. The present work was not commissioned or funded by the CTFPHC, and the authors participated in the study outside of their responsibilities with the CTFPHC. No other competing interests were declared.

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Inclusion of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) found in the asset map of the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Evidence Alliance and the CPG Infobase. The initial search was conducted on Nov. 30, 2018, with a further prepublication search on Feb. 9, 2020, to ensure that no eligible CPGs from the study period were missed that might subsequently have been added to the CPG Infobase.

References

    1. Moynihan R, Bero L, Hill S, et al. Pathways to independence: towards producing and using trustworthy evidence. BMJ 2019;367:l6576. - PubMed
    1. Campsall P, Colizza K, Straus S, et al. Financial relationships between organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines and the biomedical industry: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med 2016;13:e1002029. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bindslev JB, Schroll J, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Underreporting of conflicts of interest in clinical practice guidelines: cross sectional study. BMC Med Ethics 2013;14:19. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, et al. Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 2009;301:831–41. - PubMed
    1. Fanaroff AC, Califf RM, Windecker S, et al. Levels of evidence supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines, 2008–2018. JAMA 2019;321:1069–80. - PMC - PubMed