Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations

• Published in: Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2020-12, Vol.12 (12), p.MR000040
• Main Authors: Nejstgaard, Camilla Hansen, Bero, Lisa, Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, Jørgensen, Anders W, Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl, Le, Mary, Lundh, Andreas
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Advisory Committees - ethics; Advisory Committees - statistics & numerical data; Authorship; Bias; Conflict of Interest - economics; Consultants; Datasets as Topic - ethics; Datasets as Topic - statistics & numerical data; Drug Industry - ethics; Editorial Policies; Equipment and Supplies - ethics; EVALUATION METHODOLOGY; Humans; Methodology; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Publications - ethics; Radiologists; Review Literature as Topic
• ISSN: 1469-493X; 1469-493X
• DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000040.pub3

Treatment and diagnostic recommendations are often made in clinical guidelines, reports from advisory committee meetings, opinion pieces such as editorials, and narrative reviews. Quite often, the authors or members of advisory committees have industry ties or particular specialty interests which may impact on which interventions are recommended. Similarly, clinical guidelines and narrative reviews may be funded by industry sources resulting in conflicts of interest. To investigate to what degree financial and non-financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register for studies published up to February 2020. We also searched reference lists of included studies, Web of Science for studies citing the included studies, and grey literature sources. We included studies comparing the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations of drugs or devices (e.g. recommending a particular drug) in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, or narrative reviews. Two review authors independently included studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. When a meta-analysis was considered meaningful to synthesise our findings, we used random-effects models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with RR > 1 indicating that documents (e.g. clinical guidelines) with conflicts of interest more often had favourable recommendations. We analysed associations for financial and non-financial conflicts of interest separately, and analysed the four types of documents both separately (pre-planned analyses) and combined (post hoc analysis). We included 21 studies analysing 106 clinical guidelines, 1809 advisory committee reports, 340 opinion pieces, and 497 narrative reviews. We received unpublished data from 11 studies; eight full data sets and three summary data sets. Fifteen studies had a risk of confounding, as they compared documents that may differ in other aspects than conflicts of interest (e.g. documents on different drugs used for different populations). The associations between financial conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations were: clinical guidelines, RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.69 (four studies of 86 clinical guidelines); advisory committee reports, RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.45 (four studies of 629 a