首页> 外文期刊>Clinical medicine: journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London >Analysis of conflicts of interest among authors and researchers of European clinical guidelines in cardiovascular medicine
【24h】

Analysis of conflicts of interest among authors and researchers of European clinical guidelines in cardiovascular medicine

机译:欧洲心血管医学欧洲临床指南研究人员的利益冲突分析

获取原文
       

摘要

OBJECTIVES:We aimed to assess the frequency and nature of financial conflicts of interest among both the guideline committee authors and the authors of research studies used to support the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines.DESIGN:We evaluated the competing interests of the doctors that write five of the key ESC clinical practice guidelines (CPG): valvular heart disease (VHD), atrial fibrillation (AF), pericardial diseases (PD), heart failure (HF) and myocardial revascularisation (IHD). In addition, we examined the funding sources of studies cited in the recommendations that were related to pharmaceutical agents. If a study was sponsored by industry, the disclosures of all authors were reviewed to assess whether there was a financial conflict of interest with the study funder.RESULTS:In total, there were 603 recommendations (PD 112, VHD 111, HF 169, IHD 97 and AF 114) across the five guidelines, of which, 271 (45% (PD 26, VHD 23, HF 72, IHD 84 and AF 66)) related to pharmaceutical agents. At least 80% of guideline committee authors, except for the PD guidelines, had a relevant financial conflict of interest, with the most frequent being a direct personal payment (68-82%). Industry support for studies varied across the guidelines from 5% (PD) to 65% (IHD). If a study was funded by industry, authors were frequently (55-90%) conflicted with the industry sponsor.CONCLUSIONS:The majority of the doctors that write clinical guidelines have a relevant financial conflict of interest. In addition, industry sponsorship of studies is frequent, and authors are often conflicted with the study funder. We propose that physicians that write clinical guidelines should be free of such financial conflicts of interest to maintain scientific integrity and independence in the clinical guidelines.? Royal College of Physicians 2021. All rights reserved.
机译:目的:我们旨在评估指南委员会作者以及用于支持欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)指南的研究研究中的财务利益的频率和性质.Design:我们评估了医生的竞争利益写下五个关键的关键词临床实践指南(CPG):瓣膜心脏病(VHD),心房颤动(AF),心包疾病(PD),心力衰竭(HF)和心肌血管体外(IHD)。此外,我们审查了与药剂有关的建议所引用的研究资金来源。如果一项研究由行业赞助,审查了所有作者的披露,以评估与研究资助有关的财务利益冲突。结果:总共有603个建议(PD 112,VHD 111,HF 169,IHD 97和AF 114)跨越五种指导,其中271(45%(PD 26,VHD 23,HF 72,IHD 84和AF 66)),与药剂有关。除PD指南外,至少有80%的指南委员会提交人具有相关的财务冲突,最常见的是直接个人付款(68-82%)。行业支持在5%(PD)至65%(IHD)的指导方面各种各样的研究。如果一项研究由行业资助,作者经常(55-90%)与行业赞助商相冲突。结论:写入临床指南的大多数医生都有相关的财务利益冲突。此外,工业赞助的研究经常频繁,作者往往与学习资助者发生冲突。我们建议写入临床指南的医生不应在临床准则中维持科学诚信和独立性的这种财务冲突。皇家医师学院2021.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号