gms | German Medical Science

G-I-N Conference 2012

Guidelines International Network

22.08 - 25.08.2012, Berlin

Conflict of Interest Policies for Organizations Producing a Large Number of Clinical Practice Guidelines

Meeting Abstract

  • S.L. Norris - Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
  • H.K. Holmer - Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
  • B.U. Burda - Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA
  • L.A. Ogden - Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
  • R. Fu - Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

Guidelines International Network. G-I-N Conference 2012. Berlin, 22.-25.08.2012. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2012. DocO50

DOI: 10.3205/12gin082, URN: urn:nbn:de:0183-12gin0823

Published: July 10, 2012

© 2012 Norris et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en). You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.


Outline

Text

Background: Conflict of interest (COI) of clinical practice guideline (CPG) sponsors and authors is an important potential source of bias in CPG development.

Objectives: To describe the COI policies for organizations currently producing a large number of CPGs, and to determine if these policies meet 2011 US Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards.

Methods and Findings: We identified organizations with five or more guidelines listed in the National Guideline Clearinghouse between January 1, 2009 and November 5, 2010. We obtained the COI policy for each organization from publicly accessible sources and compared those policies to seven IOM standards related to COI.

Results: 37 organizations fulfilled our inclusion criteria, of which 17 (46%) had a COI policy directly related to CPGs. These COI policies varied widely with respect to types of COI addressed, from whom disclosures were collected, monetary thresholds for disclosure, and approaches to management. No organization adhered to all of the IOM standards that were examined, and nine organizations did not meet even one standard.

Discussion: COI policies among organizations producing a large number of CPGs currently do not measure up to the recently-released IOM standards related to COI disclosure and management. In addition, IOM standards do not address accessibility of COI policies, the relevance of secondary interests to the primary interest, the optimal presentation of disclosures, and accountability for accurate disclosures.

Implications: CPG developers need to make significant improvements in their current policies and in their implementation in order to optimize the quality and credibility of their guidelines.