Hi Loree,
I've not sat on a guideline committee but imagine you'd need a balance
of skills including senior practitioners and a good statistician? I'd
be surprised if any discipline couldn't find a group of senior people
without conflicts of interest.
Therapeutic Guidelines Ltd in Australia seem to be doing good work but
sadly are currently a subscription service. I think that if we were
serious about this sort of thing our profession would properly
resource it and fill the void that industry are so happy to occupy.
Regards,
Tom
On 8 August 2012 19:28, Kalliainen, Loree K
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi, Tom;
> This is an interesting intersection between COI, bias, and knowledge base/expertise. COI are reasonably easy to ferret out (in terms of finances, board memberships, etc), but both COI and biases may play significant roles in content of med ed and review articles. How should we compare the expert (with one set of biases) to the well-educated (with another set)? Will the audience necessarily accept the material if the content is by a nonmember of that intellectual community?
> This is of personal interest as I am a plastic surgeon who does not do breast reconstruction but am on a guideline development committee for breast reconstruction. I am able to evaluate the literature, but unless we are willing to say that the only knowledge that matters is that which is contained within the literature, we need experts to add in the less tangible items related to clinical expertise, personal knowledge of the investigators publishing in the field etc. I am quite sure that readers of the breast recon guideline would give it less credence if the committee were all nonsurgeons or even all non-breast plastic surgeons.
> Thoughts?
> Loree
>
>
> Loree K. Kalliainen, MD, MA, FACS
> Program Director, Hand Surgery Fellowship
> Department of Plastic & Hand Surgery
> Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery
> Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
> University of Minnesota
> Mail Stop 11503 B
> 640 Jackson St.
> St. Paul, MN 55101
> 651-254-4870
> 651-254-2808 (fax)
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Yates
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 12:43 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: can disclosure of financial conflicts of interest actually worsen bias?
>
> Hi Ted,
>
> Here are a few studies looking at trial/review article conclusion by
> funding source...
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34722/?tool=pubmed
> http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199801083380206#t=articleMethods
> http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/154/2/157
> http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1344?view=long&pmid=20299696
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12775614
>
> My take on conflict of interest is that you can't really tell from the
> statement whether someone's relationships are likely to affect their
> conduct. For this reason, I think it is much better if medical
> education and review articles (perhaps eventually trials) are
> written/delivered by people without conflicts of interest.
>
> CoI statement: I am currently trying to set up a scheme to accredit
> medical education delivered without industry funding by people without
> conflict of interest. I also work on a trial that has received some
> funding from GSK.
>
> Best wishes,
> Tom
>
> On 8 August 2012 15:44, Ted Harding <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 08-Aug-2012 12:50:19 Dr. Carlos Cuello wrote:
>>> Interesting question
>>>
>>> http://the-scientist.com/2012/08/07/opinion-bias-is-unavoidable/
>>> --
>>> Carlos A. Cuello-García, MD
>>
>> Interesting question indeed.
>>
>> My take on Conflict of Interest declarations is that they
>> say what they say, no more, no less, neamly that X has
>> received funding from Y.
>>
>> This does not imply that, by declaring the interest, X is
>> implicitly declaring that conduct, interpretation and
>> publication have not been influenced by the funding, and
>> were entirely objective.
>>
>> Nor does it imply that, by accepting the funding, X has
>> been influenced, or has been biased, in favour of any
>> particular outcome.
>>
>> Either interpretation may be the correct one.
>>
>> The real question is: Which interpretation is the more probable?
>>
>> Which leads on to an EBH-question:
>>
>> What studies are there which compare the outcomes of funded
>> trials with each other, with funding agency as predictive
>> covariate, where such trials refer to outcomes for a particular
>> condition and involve competing treatments?
>>
>> Best wishes to all,
>> Ted.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: 08-Aug-2012 Time: 15:44:53
>> This message was sent by XFMail
>> -------------------------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
>
> If you have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender. Disclaimer R001.0
|