A proposed approach may help systematic reviews retain needed expertise while minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest

Viswanathan, Meera; Carey, Timothy S.; Belinson, Suzanne; Berliner, Elise; Chang, Stephanie; Graham, Elaine; Guise, Jeanne Marie; Ip, Stanley; Maglione, Margaret; McCrory, Douglas C; McPheeters, Melissa L; Newberry, Sydne J; Sista, Priyanka; White, C Michael

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.02.023

Cited by 37 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, evidence shows that non-financial interests may “call into question the impartiality of [systematic] reviews”10 and negatively affect the equitable allocation of health resources in grant funding procedures 11…”

Section: Yes—miriam Wiersma Ian Kerridge Wendy Lipworthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should we try to manage non-financial interests?

Wiersma

Kerridge

Lipworth

et al. 2018

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Yes—miriam Wiersma Ian Kerridge Wendy Lipworthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should we try to manage non-financial interests?

Wiersma

Kerridge

Lipworth

et al. 2018

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the converse viewpoint appears equally plausible: the exploration of both non-financial and financial COIs may increase, rather than decrease motivation for change across the board. In this regard, it is noteworthy that recent efforts to assess whether non-financial COIs have adversely impacted on biomedical research and clinical outcomes appear to stem from a desire to strengthen the management of COI 22. Viswanathan et al investigated strategies for identifying and managing non-financial interests in systematic reviews, concluding that ‘non-financial conflicts of interest, when ignored, can call into question the impartiality of a review’ (Viswanathan et al , p. 1236) 22.…”

Section: Implications For the Management Of Coimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this regard, it is noteworthy that recent efforts to assess whether non-financial COIs have adversely impacted on biomedical research and clinical outcomes appear to stem from a desire to strengthen the management of COI 22. Viswanathan et al investigated strategies for identifying and managing non-financial interests in systematic reviews, concluding that ‘non-financial conflicts of interest, when ignored, can call into question the impartiality of a review’ (Viswanathan et al , p. 1236) 22. Similarly, a qualitative study by Abdoul et al 29 explored the impact of non-financial COIs in the evaluation of academic grants and highlighted the need for specific measures to prevent the harmful influence of non-financial COIs on the equitable allocation of health resources 29.…”

Section: Implications For the Management Of Coimentioning

confidence: 99%

Dangers of neglecting non-financial conflicts of interest in health and medicine

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-financial interests, and the conflicts of interest that may result from them, are frequently overlooked in biomedicine. This is partly due to the complex and varied nature of these interests, and the limited evidence available regarding their prevalence and impact on biomedical research and clinical practice. We suggest that there are no meaningful conceptual distinctions, and few practical differences, between financial and non-financial conflicts of interest, and accordingly, that both require careful consideration. Further, a better understanding of the complexities of non-financial conflicts of interest, and their entanglement with financial conflicts of interest, may assist in the development of a more sophisticated approach to all forms of conflicts of interest. IntroductionThe issue of "conflict of interest" (COI) in biomedicine is an enduring one, characterised by ongoing-and often heated-debates about what "counts" as an interest or conflict of interest, what (if anything) causes a COI, who (if anyone) is to blame; and how (if at all) COIs should be managed. Overwhelmingly, these debates have focused on financial interests and the COIs that may arise from them -as evident in a recent issue of JAMA dedicated to COIs in medicine. Of over 24 articles, only two articles addressed non-financial interests in depth (1, 2) -with one article dismissing non-financial COI, and reiterating the significance of bias arising from financial COI. (1, 2) While several articles acknowledged the presence, (3) and potentially problematic nature of non-financial COI, (1) (4) for the most part, the issue focused on financial COI across different medical settings -including biomedical research, medical education and guideline development. (5, 6) (7, 8) This focus on financial COI reflects the wider discourse within medicine -in which financial COIs are granted primacy, while non-financial COIs are merely acknowledged and dismissed as too complex to warrant further investigation, or alternatively defined out of existence. (2,9)

show abstract

“…In identifying experts, it may be difficult to disentangle intellectual or professional bias from pertinent clinical expertise. In adjudicating these seemingly contradictory recommendations, the EPCs responded by improving our definition of non-financial conflicts of interest to assess intellectual or professional biases, developing a set of questions to help project leads and funders assess for non-financial conflicts of interest [4] and revising our policy for handling conflicts. We maintain a tiered approach for allowable conflicts of interest depending on the level of involvement with the SR and ability to manage those conflicts.…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges in implementing The Institute of Medicine systematic review standards

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2011, The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified a set of methodological standards to improve the validity, trustworthiness, and usefulness of systematic reviews. These standards, based on a mix of theoretical principles, empiric evidence, and commonly considered best practices, set a high bar for authors of systematic reviews.Based on over 15 years of experience conducting systematic reviews, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program has examined the EPC’s adherence and agreement with the IOM standards. Even such a large program, with infrastructure and resource support, found challenges in implementing all of the IOM standards. We summarize some of the challenges in implementing the IOM standards as a whole and suggest some considerations for individual or smaller research groups needing to prioritize which standards to adhere to, yet still achieve the highest quality and utility possible for their systematic reviews.

show abstract

A proposed approach may help systematic reviews retain needed expertise while minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest

Cited by 37 publications

References 9 publications

Should we try to manage non-financial interests?

Should we try to manage non-financial interests?

Dangers of neglecting non-financial conflicts of interest in health and medicine

Challenges in implementing The Institute of Medicine systematic review standards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About