Conflicts of Interest and Clinical Recommendations: Comparison of Two Concurrent Clinical Practice Guidelines for Primary Immune Thrombocytopenia Developed by Different Methods
Conflicts of Interest and Clinical Recommendations: Comparison of Two Concurrent Clinical Practice Guidelines for Primary Immune Thrombocytopenia Developed by Different Methods
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1062860613481618
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-01
影响因子：
1.4
通讯作者：
Woolf, Steven H.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
George, James N.;Vesely, Sara K.;Woolf, Steven H.
实践指南的影响力越来越大，这增加了人们对潜在偏见来源的关注。最近的两个原发性免疫性血小板减少症（ITP）指南为系统比较不同的实践指南制定方法提供了独特的机会。一项指南（国际共识报告[ICR]）得到了为ITP生产产品的制药公司的支持。ICR小组成员是根据ITP方面的专业知识选出的；16人（73%）报告与制药公司有关联。另一个指南由美国血液学会（ASH）发起；小组成员的选择是基于缺乏冲突和指南制定方面的专业知识以及ITP。当指南涉及治疗时，差异是明显的。与ASH指南相反，ICR对ICR或其专家组成员得到支持的公司生产的制剂提出了更强有力的建议。这些数据提供了直接证据，表明财政支持和证据评估方法的差异会影响建议。
The growing influence of practice guidelines has increased concern for potential sources of bias. Two recent guidelines for primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) provided a unique opportunity for a systematic comparison of different methods of practice guideline development. One guideline (International Consensus Report [ICR]) was supported by pharmaceutical companies that produce products for ITP. The ICR panel members were selected for expertise in ITP; 16 (73%) reported associations with pharmaceutical companies. The other guideline was sponsored by the American Society of Hematology (ASH); panel members were selected for lack of conflicts and for expertise in guideline development as well as for ITP. Discrepancies were conspicuous when the guidelines addressed treatment. In contrast to the ASH guideline, the ICR gave stronger recommendations for agents manufactured by companies from which the ICR or its panel members received support. These data provide direct evidence that differences in financial support and methods of evidence evaluation can influence recommendations.