Literature DB >> 24388018

Systematic analysis underlying the quality of the scientific evidence and conflicts of interest in interventional medicine subspecialty guidelines.

Joseph D Feuerstein1, Mona Akbari2, Anne E Gifford3, Christine M Hurley3, Daniel A Leffler3, Sunil G Sheth3, Adam S Cheifetz3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of guidelines published by interventional medical societies.
METHODS: We reviewed the interventional medicine subspecialty society websites of the American Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology (AABIP), American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology (ASDIN), American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) as of November 15, 2012, for published interventional guidelines. The study was performed between November 15, 2012, and January 1, 2013. The AABIP did not publish guidelines, so American Thoracic Society and American College of Chest Physicians guidelines were reviewed. All the guidelines were reviewed for graded levels of evidence, methods used to grade the evidence, and disclosures of conflicts of interest (COIs).
RESULTS: Of 153 interventional guidelines evaluated, 4 were duplicates. Forty-six percent of guidelines (69 of 149) graded the quality of evidence using 7 different methods. The ASGE graded 71% of guidelines (46 of 65) compared with 29% (23 of 78) by the SCAI and 0 by the ASDIN (n=4) and the pulmonary societies (n=2). Of the 3425 recommendations reviewed, 11% (n=364) were supported by level A, 42% (n=1432) by level B, and 48% (n=1629) by level C. The mean age of the guidelines was 5.2 years. Additionally, 62% of the guidelines (92 of 149) failed to comment on COIs; when disclosed, 91% of guidelines (52 of 57) reported COIs. In total, 1827 COIs were reported by 45% of the authors (317 of 697), averaging 5.8 COIs per author.
CONCLUSION: Most of the interventional guidelines failed to grade the evidence. When present, most guidelines used lower-quality evidence. Furthermore, most guidelines failed to disclose COIs. When commented on, numerous COIs were present. Future guidelines should clearly state the quality of evidence, use a standard grading system, be transparent regarding potential biases, and provide frequent updates.
Copyright © 2014 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AABIP; ACCP/CHEST; ASDIN; ASGE; ATS; AUC; American Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology; American College of Chest Physicians; American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology; American Thoracic Society; COI; IOM; Institute of Medicine; SCAI; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; appropriate use criteria; conflict of interest

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24388018     DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.09.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc        ISSN: 0025-6196            Impact factor:   7.616


  12 in total

Review 1.  Systematic Analysis and Critical Appraisal of the Quality of the Scientific Evidence and Conflicts of Interest in Practice Guidelines (2005-2013) for Barrett's Esophagus.

Authors:  Joseph D Feuerstein; Natalia E Castillo; Mona Akbari; Edward Belkin; Jeffrey J Lewandowski; Christine M Hurley; Samuel Lloyd; Daniel A Leffler; Adam S Cheifetz
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  Robert M Califf; Jeremy Sugarman
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

3.  Multicenter Study Assessing Physician Recommendations Regarding the Continuation of Aspirin and/or NSAIDs Prior to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Authors:  Joseph D Feuerstein; Elliot B Tapper; Edward Belkin; Jeffrey J Lewandowski; Anand Singla; Saurabh Sethi; Sunil G Sheth; Mandeep Sawheny
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 4.  Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Sahar Tabatabavakili; Rishad Khan; Michael A Scaffidi; Nikko Gimpaya; David Lightfoot; Samir C Grover
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes       Date:  2021-01-19

5.  Tools for assessing the content of guidelines are needed to enable their effective use--a systematic comparison.

Authors:  Michaela Eikermann; Nicole Holzmann; Ulrich Siering; Alric Rüther
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2014-11-26

6.  Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH Collaboratory.

Authors:  Kevin P Weinfurt; Adrian F Hernandez; Gloria D Coronado; Lynn L DeBar; Laura M Dember; Beverly B Green; Patrick J Heagerty; Susan S Huang; Kathryn T James; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Eric B Larson; Vincent Mor; Richard Platt; Gary E Rosenthal; Edward J Septimus; Gregory E Simon; Karen L Staman; Jeremy Sugarman; Miguel Vazquez; Douglas Zatzick; Lesley H Curtis
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  National stakeholders' perceptions of the processes that inform the development of national clinical practice guidelines for primary healthcare in South Africa.

Authors:  Tamara Kredo; Sara Cooper; Amber Abrams; Karen Daniels; Jimmy Volmink; Salla Atkins
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2018-07-31

8.  Knowledge and use of evidence-based medicine in daily practice by health professionals: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Carmelo Lafuente-Lafuente; Catia Leitao; Insaf Kilani; Zineb Kacher; Cynthia Engels; Florence Canouï-Poitrine; Joël Belmin
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-03-30       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Evidence supporting recommendations from international guidelines on treatment, diagnosis, and prevention of HAP and VAP in adults.

Authors:  Laura Campogiani; Sofia Tejada; João Ferreira-Coimbra; Marcos I Restrepo; Jordi Rello
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2019-12-10       Impact factor: 3.267

10.  Impact and use of reviews and 'overviews of reviews' to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study.

Authors:  Carole Lunny; Cynthia Ramasubbu; Savannah Gerrish; Tracy Liu; Douglas M Salzwedel; Lorri Puil; Barbara Mintzes; James Jim Wright
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-01-20       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.