Industry involvement in rheumatology consensus-based recommendations: a systematic review
- PMID: 38288738
- DOI: 10.1016/S2665-9913(21)00332-5
Industry involvement in rheumatology consensus-based recommendations: a systematic review
Abstract
Consensus-based recommendations guide standards of care for clinical practice. Pharmaceutical industry involvement in producing such recommendations might undermine their objectivity. We did a systematic review of rheumatology consensus-based recommendations that were published in English from 2000 to 2020. We compared those that were endorsed by major professional societies to those that were sponsored by industry using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Of 234 consensus-based recommendation projects, 51 (22%) were endorsed by major societies and 74 (32%) were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Among industry-sponsored projects, the sponsor was involved in the consensus-based process in 21 (28%), provided a medical writer in 12 (16%), offered honoraria for participation in five (7%), and was allowed to approve the final draft of one project. When compared with projects endorsed by major societies, industry-sponsored projects were less likely to have a high quality assessment on the AGREE II instrument. These results suggest that industry sponsorship of consensus-based recommendations is common in projects that do not receive endorsement by major societies. Such projects are often of lower quality than guidelines endorsed by major professional societies. Medical journals should consider steps to encourage greater rigour of development and to limit undue influence by industry sponsors.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of interests PS is a steering committee member of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance and the Social Media Editor for ACR Journals (Arthritis & Rheumatology, Arthritis Care & Research, ACR Open Rheumatology). SLW reports grants or contracts from the Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trial Network. PCR reports the following: grants or contracts from Pfizer, Janssen, UCB, and Novartis; consulting fees from Janssen, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, Eli Lilly, UCB, and AbbVie; payment or honoraria from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, UCB, and Roche; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer, UCB, and BMS; participation in a data and safety monitoring board from Atom Biosciences; board member of Australian Rheumatology Association and board member of Arthritis Queensland. MSP reports institutional funding for clinical trials from AbbVie and AstraZeneca. The other authors declare no competing interests.
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
