gms | German Medical Science

G-I-N Conference 2012

Guidelines International Network

22.08 - 25.08.2012, Berlin

Challenges in the criteria-guided appraisal of conflicts of interest of guideline panellists

Meeting Abstract

Suche in Medline nach

  • I. Kopp - Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany, Marburg, Germany
  • H. Knueppel - CELLS (Centre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences), Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
  • D. Strech - CELLS (Centre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences), Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

Guidelines International Network. G-I-N Conference 2012. Berlin, 22.-25.08.2012. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2012. DocWS11

doi: 10.3205/12gin032, urn:nbn:de:0183-12gin0329

Veröffentlicht: 10. Juli 2012

© 2012 Kopp et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen ( Er darf vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden.



Background: A new methodological challenge in guideline development is the management of conflicts of interests (COIs) of guideline panellists to avoid bias. It seems uncontroversial that at least financial COIs need to be assessed and made transparent in guidelines. Uncertainty raises from different operational definitions of non-financial or intellectual COIs. A controversial question is how to critically appraise the possible impact of COIs and to decide about the strategy of managing them.

Objective: This workshop aims to introduce and clarify methodological challenges in appraising financial and intellectual COIs and finding adequate management strategies.

Target group: All persons involved in guideline development might be interested.

Description of the workshop and of the methods used to facilitate interactions: In this workshop we first introduce the six criteria for the evaluation of the strength of COIs published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2009:

Likelihood of undue influence with sub criteria

1.1 value of the secondary interest,

1.2 scope of conflict,

1.3 extent of discretion and

Seriousness of possible harm with sub criteria

2.1 value of the primary interest,

2.2 scope of consequences,

2.3 extent of accountability.

Second, we present two hypothetical case examples reflecting typical situations of COI appraisal for guideline panellists. In a moderated group discussion the workshop participants shall 'solve' the 2 case examples by employing the six IOM criteria.

Additionally, case examples presented by workshop participants may be discussed. Methodological opportunities as well as limitations in applying the IOM criteria will be noted during the discussion.