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

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives Groups such as the Institute of Medicine emphasize the importance of attention to financial conflicts of interest. Little guidance exists, however, on managing the risk of bias for systematic reviews from nonfinancial conflicts of interest. We sought to create practical guidance on ensuring adequate clinical or content expertise while maintaining independence of judgment on systematic review teams.

Study Design and Setting Workgroup members built on existing guidance from international and domestic institutions on managing conflicts of interest. We then developed practical guidance in the form of an instrument for each potential source of conflict.

Results We modified the Institute of Medicine's definition of conflict of interest to arrive at a definition specific to nonfinancial conflicts. We propose questions for funders and systematic review principal investigators to evaluate the risk of nonfinancial conflicts of interest. Once risks have been identified, options for managing conflicts include disclosure followed by no change in the systematic review team or activities, inclusion on the team along with other members with differing viewpoints to ensure diverse perspectives, exclusion from certain activities, and exclusion from the project entirely.

Conclusion The feasibility and utility of this approach to ensuring needed expertise on systematic reviews and minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest must be investigated.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1229-1238
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume67
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2014

Fingerprint

Conflict of Interest
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.) Health and Medicine Division
Disclosure
Research Personnel
Conflict (Psychology)

Keywords

  • Bias
  • Comparative effectiveness
  • Evidence-based practice
  • Identification and management of conflicts of interest
  • Nonfinancial conflicts of interest
  • Systematic review methods

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

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 E.; Berliner, Elise; Chang, Stephanie M.; Graham, Elaine; Guise, Jeanne-Marie; Ip, Stanley; Maglione, Margaret A.; McCrory, Douglas C.; McPheeters, Melissa; Newberry, Sydne J.; Sista, Priyanka; White, C. Michael.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 67, No. 11, 01.11.2014, p. 1229-1238.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Viswanathan, M, Carey, TS, Belinson, SE, Berliner, E, Chang, SM, Graham, E, Guise, J-M, Ip, S, Maglione, MA, McCrory, DC, McPheeters, M, Newberry, SJ, Sista, P & White, CM 2014, 'A proposed approach may help systematic reviews retain needed expertise while minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 1229-1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.02.023
Viswanathan, Meera ; Carey, Timothy S. ; Belinson, Suzanne E. ; Berliner, Elise ; Chang, Stephanie M. ; Graham, Elaine ; Guise, Jeanne-Marie ; Ip, Stanley ; Maglione, Margaret A. ; McCrory, Douglas C. ; McPheeters, Melissa ; Newberry, Sydne J. ; Sista, Priyanka ; White, C. Michael. / A proposed approach may help systematic reviews retain needed expertise while minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2014 ; Vol. 67, No. 11. pp. 1229-1238.
@article{277a21fb54c349b89ade91039f120d2f,
title = "A proposed approach may help systematic reviews retain needed expertise while minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest",
abstract = "Objectives Groups such as the Institute of Medicine emphasize the importance of attention to financial conflicts of interest. Little guidance exists, however, on managing the risk of bias for systematic reviews from nonfinancial conflicts of interest. We sought to create practical guidance on ensuring adequate clinical or content expertise while maintaining independence of judgment on systematic review teams.Study Design and Setting Workgroup members built on existing guidance from international and domestic institutions on managing conflicts of interest. We then developed practical guidance in the form of an instrument for each potential source of conflict.Results We modified the Institute of Medicine's definition of conflict of interest to arrive at a definition specific to nonfinancial conflicts. We propose questions for funders and systematic review principal investigators to evaluate the risk of nonfinancial conflicts of interest. Once risks have been identified, options for managing conflicts include disclosure followed by no change in the systematic review team or activities, inclusion on the team along with other members with differing viewpoints to ensure diverse perspectives, exclusion from certain activities, and exclusion from the project entirely.Conclusion The feasibility and utility of this approach to ensuring needed expertise on systematic reviews and minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest must be investigated.",
keywords = "Bias, Comparative effectiveness, Evidence-based practice, Identification and management of conflicts of interest, Nonfinancial conflicts of interest, Systematic review methods",
author = "Meera Viswanathan and Carey, {Timothy S.} and Belinson, {Suzanne E.} and Elise Berliner and Chang, {Stephanie M.} and Elaine Graham and Jeanne-Marie Guise and Stanley Ip and Maglione, {Margaret A.} and McCrory, {Douglas C.} and Melissa McPheeters and Newberry, {Sydne J.} and Priyanka Sista and White, {C. Michael}",
year = "2014",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.02.023",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "67",
pages = "1229--1238",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A proposed approach may help systematic reviews retain needed expertise while minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest

AU - Viswanathan, Meera

AU - Carey, Timothy S.

AU - Belinson, Suzanne E.

AU - Berliner, Elise

AU - Chang, Stephanie M.

AU - Graham, Elaine

AU - Guise, Jeanne-Marie

AU - Ip, Stanley

AU - Maglione, Margaret A.

AU - McCrory, Douglas C.

AU - McPheeters, Melissa

AU - Newberry, Sydne J.

AU - Sista, Priyanka

AU - White, C. Michael

PY - 2014/11/1

Y1 - 2014/11/1

N2 - Objectives Groups such as the Institute of Medicine emphasize the importance of attention to financial conflicts of interest. Little guidance exists, however, on managing the risk of bias for systematic reviews from nonfinancial conflicts of interest. We sought to create practical guidance on ensuring adequate clinical or content expertise while maintaining independence of judgment on systematic review teams.Study Design and Setting Workgroup members built on existing guidance from international and domestic institutions on managing conflicts of interest. We then developed practical guidance in the form of an instrument for each potential source of conflict.Results We modified the Institute of Medicine's definition of conflict of interest to arrive at a definition specific to nonfinancial conflicts. We propose questions for funders and systematic review principal investigators to evaluate the risk of nonfinancial conflicts of interest. Once risks have been identified, options for managing conflicts include disclosure followed by no change in the systematic review team or activities, inclusion on the team along with other members with differing viewpoints to ensure diverse perspectives, exclusion from certain activities, and exclusion from the project entirely.Conclusion The feasibility and utility of this approach to ensuring needed expertise on systematic reviews and minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest must be investigated.

AB - Objectives Groups such as the Institute of Medicine emphasize the importance of attention to financial conflicts of interest. Little guidance exists, however, on managing the risk of bias for systematic reviews from nonfinancial conflicts of interest. We sought to create practical guidance on ensuring adequate clinical or content expertise while maintaining independence of judgment on systematic review teams.Study Design and Setting Workgroup members built on existing guidance from international and domestic institutions on managing conflicts of interest. We then developed practical guidance in the form of an instrument for each potential source of conflict.Results We modified the Institute of Medicine's definition of conflict of interest to arrive at a definition specific to nonfinancial conflicts. We propose questions for funders and systematic review principal investigators to evaluate the risk of nonfinancial conflicts of interest. Once risks have been identified, options for managing conflicts include disclosure followed by no change in the systematic review team or activities, inclusion on the team along with other members with differing viewpoints to ensure diverse perspectives, exclusion from certain activities, and exclusion from the project entirely.Conclusion The feasibility and utility of this approach to ensuring needed expertise on systematic reviews and minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest must be investigated.

KW - Bias

KW - Comparative effectiveness

KW - Evidence-based practice

KW - Identification and management of conflicts of interest

KW - Nonfinancial conflicts of interest

KW - Systematic review methods

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908304632&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908304632&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.02.023

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.02.023

M3 - Article

C2 - 25022723

AN - SCOPUS:84908304632

VL - 67

SP - 1229

EP - 1238

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 11

ER -