Reply

Aronsohn, Andrew; Bhattacharya, Debika; Morgan, Timothy R.; Wyles, David L.; Chung, Raymond T.; McQuillen, Daniel P.

doi:10.1002/hep.32257

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One recent empirical study showed that expert consensus-based recommendations tended to be strongly stated and more inappropriate than evidence-based recommendations, even though the recommendations were on the basis of low quality of evidence (41). Special caution for the development process should be paid in developing recommendations with little high-quality evidence and many expert opinions, as different guideline authors tended to make different and sometimes quite opposite recommendations depending on lower quality of evidence, as in the cases of routine mammography for breast cancer (7,46,47) and direct-acting antiviral medications for hepatitis C (31,(48)(49)(50). Changing the stringency of COI management depending on the quality of the evidence for the recommendations might be appropriate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Conflicts of Interest among Participants of the Japanese Nephrology Clinical Practice Guideline

Murayama

Yamada

Yoshida

et al. 2022

CJASN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectivesRigorous and transparent management strategies for conflicts of interest and clinical practice guidelines with the best available evidence are necessary for the development of nephrology guidelines. However, there was no study assessing financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest, quality of evidence underlying the Japanese guidelines for CKD, and conflict of interest policies for guideline development.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThis cross-sectional study examined financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest among all 142 authors of CKD guidelines issued by the Japanese Society of Nephrology using a personal payment database from all 92 major Japanese pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019 and self-citations by guideline authors. Also, the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations underlying the guidelines and conflicts of interest policies of Japanese, US, and European nephrology societies were evaluated.ResultsAmong 142 authors, 125 authors (88%) received $6,742,889 in personal payments from 56 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. Four-year combined median payment per author was $8258 (interquartile range, $2230‒$51,617). The amounts of payments and proportion of guideline authors with payments remained stable during and after guideline development. The chairperson, vice chairperson, and group leaders received higher personal payments than other guideline authors. Of 861 references in the guidelines, 69 (8%) references were self-cited by the guideline authors, and 76% of the recommendations were on the basis of low or very low quality of evidence. There were no fully rigorous and transparent conflicts of interest policies for nephrology guideline authors in the United States, Europe, and Japan.ConclusionsMost of the Japanese CKD guideline recommendations were on the basis of low quality of evidence by the guideline authors tied with pharmaceutical companies, suggesting the need for better financial conflicts of interest management.

show abstract