Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Guidelines: Update of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Policies and Procedures

Abstract

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) provides independent, objective, and scientifically rigorous recommendations for clinical preventive services. A primary concern is to avoid even the appearance of members having special interests that might influence their ability to judge evidence and formulate unbiased recommendations. The conflicts of interest policy for the USPSTF is described, as is the formal process by which best practices were incorporated to update the policy. The USPSTF performed a literature review, conducted key informant interviews, and reviewed conflicts of interest policies of ten similar organizations. Important findings included transparency and public accessibility; full disclosure of financial relationships; disclosure of non-financial relationships (that create the potential for bias and compromise a member's objective judgment); disclosure of family members' conflicts of interests; and establishment of appropriate reporting periods. Controversies in best practices include the threshold of financial disclosures, ease of access to conflicts of interest policies and declarations, vague definition of non-financial biases, and request for family members' conflicts of interests (particularly those that are non-financial in nature). The USPSTF conflicts of interest policy includes disclosures for immediate family members, a clear non-financial conflicts of interest definition, long look-back period and application of the policy to prospective members. Conflicts of interest is solicited from all members every 4 months, formally reviewed, adjudicated, and made publicly available. The USPSTF conflicts of interest policy is publicly available as part of the USPSTF Procedure Manual. A continuous improvement process can be applied to conflicts of interest policies to enhance public trust in members of panels, such as the USPSTF, that produce clinical guidelines and recommendations.

A Quantitative and Narrative Evaluation of Goodman and Gilman’s Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics

“…The recipients of industry-provided misinformation regarding strong opioids likely contributed to the US opioid epidemic [37]. Complete and accurate CoI disclosures will contribute to maintaining the highest degree of trust that content is consistent with the principles of evidence-based medicine [20] in subsequent editions.…”

“…Conflicts of interest (CoIs) were defined as "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest" [13]. The transparency of CoI has become increasingly ubiquitous for primary sources [14] including clinical trials [15], undergraduate medical education [16], continuing medical education [17], point of care computerized sources [18], meta-analyses [19], and clinical practice guidelines [20]. The US Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2010 required that all compensation (≥$10) to doctors of medicine, osteopathy, dentistry, dental surgery, podiatry, optometry, and chiropractic medicine (i.e., PharmDs, PhDs, PAs, and NPs were not covered although this subsequently changed for PAs and NPs) from manufacturers of drugs and medical devices be reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and made available on its public website.…”

Identifying conflict of interest disclosure in systematic reviews of surgical interventions and devices: a cross-sectional survey

“…The number of studies regarding COI increased considerably in recently year because of the concerns about competing interests between researchers and manufactures [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. In 2017, the Lancet published a collection to discuss issues relating to con ict of interests.…”

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Methods to Communicate and Disseminate Clinical Preventive Services Recommendations

“…The USPSTF recognizes the importance of the National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Medicine standards for clinical recommendation development, including having diversity within the recommendation development group, managing and vetting conflicts of interest, 7 ensuring transparency with the recommendation development process, obtaining public input, and clearly articulating the recommendation. 8 These standards are incorporated into the USPSTF's methods.…”