Dataset Information

Reporting of conflicts of interest and of sponsorship of guidelines in anaesthesiology. A cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: Guideline recommendations may be biased due to conflicts of interest (COI) of panel members and sponsorship of the guideline. Potential impact of COI, and their management, should be transparently reported. We analysed 110 guidelines published in ten anaesthesia journals from 2007 to June 2018. We report on the number (%) that 1) published COI disclosures; 2) in a distinct paragraph; 3) described and explained the COI of panel members, and 4) of the Chairperson; 5) reported and described the presence or absence and potential impact of a sponsor of the guideline on the recommendations; and 6) reported how COI were managed. COI were published in 70/110 (64%) guidelines; in a distinct paragraph in 25/70 (36%). Panel members reported having no COI in 27/70 (39%) guidelines, disclosed COI without describing their potential impact in 41/70 (59%), and described their potential impact in 2/70 (3%). Chairpersons were identified in 50 guidelines, 32 of which published COI disclosures; 16/32 (50%) reported having no COI, 14/32 (44%) disclosed COI without describing their potential impact, 1/32 (3%) described their impact and 1/32 (3%) made no statement regarding COI. Presence or absence of a sponsor of the guideline was reported in 40 guidelines; 12/40 (30%) declared none, 24/40 (60%) reported sponsoring without explanation of the potential impact, and 4/40 (10%) described the potential influence of the sponsor on the guideline recommendations. Seventy-five guidelines reported COI of panel members and/or sponsorship of the guideline but only seven described how the COI had been managed. Disclosures of COI of panel members and of sponsors of guidelines have increased over the 12 year period, but remain insufficiently described and their potential influence on the guidelines' recommendations is poorly documented.

SUBMITTER: Wyssa D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6392260 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting of conflicts of interest and of sponsorship of guidelines in anaesthesiology. A cross-sectional study.

Wyssa Damien D Tramèr Martin R MR Elia Nadia N

PloS one 20190227 2

Guideline recommendations may be biased due to conflicts of interest (COI) of panel members and sponsorship of the guideline. Potential impact of COI, and their management, should be transparently reported. We analysed 110 guidelines published in ten anaesthesia journals from 2007 to June 2018. We report on the number (%) that 1) published COI disclosures; 2) in a distinct paragraph; 3) described and explained the COI of panel members, and 4) of the Chairperson; 5) reported and described the pre ...[more]

PMID: 30811517

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceConflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies are critical to enhancing the integrity of research. However, it is unclear how Chinese medical journals interpret and enforce such policies.ObjectivesThe goal of this investigation is to determine the current status of COI disclosure policy enforcement in Chinese medical journals and to promote comprehensive COI policies.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study conducted from September 1st to October 29th 2017, journal instructions, websites and print issues of journals indexed by the Core Journals of China (version 2014), in the medical and health sector, were reviewed to identify whether COI disclosure policies existed and how complete these policies were.ResultsOf 248 eligible journals, 78 (31%) mentioned COI policies; 9 (4%) applied standardized disclosure forms; 18 (7%) required disclosure statements in articles; 4 (2%) mentioned policy bases; none validated disclosed COIs; 2 (1%) mentioned how they dealt with breaches; 18 (7%) involved the management of disclosed COIs; and 62 (25%) and 55 (22%) noted financial and nonfinancial COIs, respectively. Seventy-eight journals (31%) mentioned COIs in research and authors' obligation towards disclosure; 2 (1%) and 6 (2%) mentioned family members' and institutional COIs, respectively. Twenty-two and 11 journals mentioned at least one form of financial and nonfinancial COI type in research, respectively. Seven journals (3%) required disclosure of the source of financial support in research, but no journals mentioned the amount of support. Seven (3%) and 12 (5%) journals mentioned COIs in the editorial process and peer-review, respectively. Clinical journals (45%) paid more attention to COI policies than non-clinical journals.ConclusionsApproximately one-third of Chinese medical journals had COI policies, and of the journals that mentioned financial COIs most required nonfinancial COIs. However, the extent to which journals implemented COI policies was insufficient. There is a generic lack of standardized disclosure forms and management of COIs in most journals. The subject and details of COIs involved in the editorial and peer-review process received less attention than those in research.

Project description:ObjectiveTo (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author-industry financial ties and author-industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010.DesignReview of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses.Data sourcesMEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting articlesWe selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥2 RCTs and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs.Results90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% CI 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author-industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting trial funding was ≤0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author-industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI 2% to 19%).ConclusionsReporting of trial funding sources, trial author-industry financial ties and trial author-industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report.MethodsWe conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses.ResultsEighty percent of systematic reviews included authors' COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document.ConclusionA fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both.

Project description:BackgroundThe discipline of anaesthesiology in China has undergone historical changes and development during the past century. However, nationwide comprehensive data on the current status of each hospital department providing anaesthesia care has been lacking since the discipline was first established in China. This information is essential for effective regulation of healthcare policies by both the professional associations and the government health ministry. Therefore, a nationwide survey was set up in 2018 to investigate the current status of Chinese anaesthesiology. This paper reports the findings of the survey.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional nationwide census survey of the current status of each hospital department providing anaesthesia care in 31 provinces across the Chinese mainland. The content of the survey included general information of the department, the hospital level and scale, the volume of the anaesthesiology department, the characteristics of anaesthesiologists, and the caseload of the anaesthesiology departments. Face-to-face interviews were performed by trained interviewers. The Chinese Anaesthesiology Department Tracking Database (CADTD) was established during the survey. Data quality control was undertaken by the investigation committee throughout the survey process.FindingsThe nationwide census survey was completed by 11,432 hospital departments providing anaesthesia care throughout mainland China from June 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019. Among the 11,432 departments, 4591 (40•16%) belonged to specialised hospitals, while 6841 (59•84%) were affiliated to general hospitals. The proportion of independent anaesthesiology departments was 45•15% in mainland China. There was a total of 92,726 anaesthesiologists, or 6•7 per 100,000 of the population. Regions with better economic conditions had more anaesthesiologists per 100,000 of the population. From 2015 to 2017, the workload of anaesthesiologists has increased by 10%.InterpretationThe discipline of anaesthesiology in China has entered a rapid development phase. However, the current status of anaesthesiology is not well defined, which makes it difficult to meet the needs of the increasing Chinese healthcare demand. The evidence from this survey offers valuable information for policy makers and anaesthesiology associations to monitor the development of the discipline and regulate healthcare policies effectively.FundingNational Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2018YFC2001900).

Dataset Information

Reporting of conflicts of interest and of sponsorship of guidelines in anaesthesiology. A cross-sectional study.

Publications

Reporting of conflicts of interest and of sponsorship of guidelines in anaesthesiology. A cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure