↓ Skip to main content

Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guidelines: a case study analysis of guidelines from the Canadian Medical Association Infobase

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
46 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guidelines: a case study analysis of guidelines from the Canadian Medical Association Infobase
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1646-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrienne Shnier, Joel Lexchin, Mirna Romero, Kevin Brown

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines are widely distributed by medical associations and relied upon by physicians for the best available clinical evidence. International findings report that financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) with drug companies may influence drug recommendations and are common among guideline authors. There is no comparable study on exclusively Canadian guidelines; therefore, we provide a case study of authors' FCOI declarations in guidelines from the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) Infobase. We also assess the financial relationships between guideline-affiliated organizations and drug companies. Using a population approach, we extracted first-line drug recommendations and authors' FCOI disclosures in guidelines from the CMA Infobase. We contacted the corresponding authors on guidelines when FCOI disclosures were missing for some or all authors. We also extracted guideline-affiliated organizations and searched each of their websites to determine if they had financial relationships with drug companies. We analyzed 350 authors from 28 guidelines. Authors were named on one, two, or three guidelines, yielding 400 FCOI statements. In 75.0 % of guidelines at least one author, and in 21.4 % of guidelines all authors, disclosed FCOI with drug companies. In 54.0 % of guidelines at least one author, and in 28.6 % of guidelines over half of the authors, disclosed FCOI with manufacturers of drugs that they recommended. Twenty of 48 authors on multiple guidelines reported different FCOI in their disclosures. Eight guidelines identified affiliated organizations with financial relationships with manufacturers of drugs recommended in those guidelines. This is the first study to systematically describe FCOI disclosures by authors of Canadian guidelines and financial relationships between guideline-affiliated organizations and pharmaceutical companies. These financial relationships are common. Because authoritative value is assigned to guidelines distributed by medical associations, we encourage them to develop formal policies to limit the potential influence of FCOI on guideline recommendations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 21%
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 43%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 7%
Chemistry 2 7%
Psychology 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 9 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 108. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2022.
All research outputs
#395,472
of 25,718,113 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#62
of 8,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,618
of 357,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#3
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,718,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,742 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 357,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.