Cited by 42Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareClinical practice guidelines implementationAcademic integrity and plagiarism

Conflicts of interest disclosure forms and management in critical care clinical practice guidelines

Alhazzani, Waleed, Lewis, Kimberley, Jaeschke, Roman, Rochwerg, Bram, Møller, Morten Hylander, Evans, Laura, Wilson, Kevin C., Patel, Sheena +4 more·2018·Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract

Background Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) require identification and careful management of conflicts of interest (COIs) among all participants in the guideline development. Furthermore, COIs are more common than anticipated. However, there are no universally accepted methods to identify and manage COIs.Objective To describe and summarize the current COI disclosure forms and management policies in selected critical care professional societies that develop high-impact CPGs. In addition, we aim to provide suggestions to guideline developers on how to identify and manage different types of COIs.Methods We searched PubMed and MEDLINE for CPGs published between 2013 and 2018 in English language and addressed general critical care topics. We then ranked the CPGs according to the numbers of citations and selected the first five critical care professional societies that sponsored the guidelines. We obtained the most recent COI declaration forms and management policies. Two reviewers abstracted data on different types of COI in each of the disclosure forms and management policies.Results All selected professional critical care societies require that members declare direct financial COIs; four societies inquire specifically about intellectual COIs (involvement in primary research). Three out of five societies require members to disclose indirect institutional financial COIs; however, none inquire about other forms of institutional COI. We developed, by consensus, a streamlined framework to classify and manage different types of COIs.Conclusion The current COI disclosure forms of selected professional societies provide more attention to financial disclosures and COIs and less attention to detecting and managing intellectual COIs, while rarely addressing institutional COIs. We provide some suggestions for guideline developers on the classification and management of different COIs in the context of CPGs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00134-018-5367-6

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alhazzani, W., Lewis, K., Jaeschke, R., Rochwerg, B., Møller, M. H., Evans, L., Wilson, K. C., Patel, S., Coopersmith, C. M., Cecconi, M., Guyatt, G., & Akl, E. A.
Affiliations
  • St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (CA)
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
  • New York University (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • American College of Chest Physicians (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Humanitas University (IT)
  • McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Alhazzani, Waleed
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Published
2018-09-27
Volume
44
Issue
10
Pages
1691-1698
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
OpenAlex
W2893584036
Cited by
42
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Intensive Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
conflicts of interest, intensive care, financial conflicts of interest, guideline development, professional associations, disclosure framework
MeSH terms
Critical Care, Humans, Conflict of Interest, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Disclosure, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review