BioSpace Collaborative

Academic/Biomedical Research
News & Jobs
Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Channel Medical Device and Diagnostics Channel Clinical Research Channel BioSpace Collaborative    Job Seekers:  Register | Login          Employers:  Register | Login  

Free Newsletters
My Subscriptions

News by Subject
News by Disease
News by Date
Search News
Post Your News

Job Seeker Login
Most Recent Jobs
Search Jobs
Post Resume
Career Fairs
Career Resources
For Employers

Regional News
US & Canada
  Biotech Bay
  Biotech Beach
  Pharm Country
  Bio NC
  Southern Pharm
  BioCanada East
  C2C Services & Suppliers™


Company Profiles

Research Store

Research Events
Post an Event
Real Estate
Business Opportunities

PLoS By Category | Recent PLoS Articles
Non-Clinical Medicine - Public Health and Epidemiology - Science Policy

Conflict of Interest in Clinical Practice Guideline Development: A Systematic Review
Published: Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Author: Susan L. Norris et al.

by Susan L. Norris, Haley K. Holmer, Lauren A. Ogden, Brittany U. Burda


There is an emerging literature on the existence and effect of industry relationships on physician and researcher behavior. Much less is known, however, about the effects of these relationships and other conflicts of interest (COI) on clinical practice guideline (CPG) development and recommendations. We performed a systematic review of the prevalence of COI and its effect on CPG recommendations.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We searched Medline (1980 to March, 2011) for studies that examined the effect of COI on CPG development and/or recommendations. Data synthesis was qualitative. Twelve studies fulfilled inclusion criteria; 9 were conducted in the US. All studies reported on financial relationships of CPG authors with the pharmaceutical industry; 1 study also examined relationships with diagnostic testing and insurance companies. The majority of guidelines had authors with industry affiliations, including consultancies (authors with relationship, range 6–80%); research support (4–78%); equity/stock ownership (2–17%); or any COI (56–87%). Four studies reported multiple types of financial interactions for individual authors (number of types per author: range 2 to 10 or more). Data on the effect of COI on CPG recommendations were confined to case studies wherein authors with specific financial ties appeared to benefit from the related CPG recommendations. In a single study, few authors believed that their relationships influenced their recommendations. No studies reported on intellectual COI in CPGs.


There are limited data describing the high prevalence of COI among CPG authors, and only case studies of the effect of COI on CPG recommendations. Further research is needed to explore this potential source of bias.