Search

Because of increased attention to the issue of trustworthiness of clinical practice guidelines, it may be that both transparency and management of industry associations of guideline development groups (GDGs) have improved. The purpose of the present study was to assess a) the disclosure requirements of GDGs in a cross-section of guidelines for major depression; and, b) the extent and type of conflicts of panel members. Treatment guidelines for major depression were identified and searched for conflict of interest policies and disclosure statements. Multi-modal screens for undeclared conflicts were also conducted. Fourteen guidelines with a total of 172 panel members were included in the analysis. Eleven of the 14 guidelines (78%) had a stated conflict of interest policy or disclosure statement, although the policies varied widely. Most (57%) of the guidelines were developed by panels that had members with industry financial ties to drug companies that manufacture antidepressant medication. However, only a minority of total panel members (18%) had such conflicts of interest. Drug company speakers bureau participation was the most common type of conflict. Although some progress has been made, organizations that develop guidelines should continue to work toward greater transparency and minimization of financial conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The dilemmas of risk management decisions have been the focus of scholarly research across a variety of disciplines including cognitive psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and law. The responses of a culture [...]

Prominent scientists and policymakers assert with confidence that there is no scientific controversy over the health effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—that genetically modified crops currently in commercial use and those yet to be commercialized are inherently safe for human consumption and do not have to be tested. Those who disagree are cast as “GMO deniers.” This article examines scientific reviews and papers on GMOs, compares the findings of professional societies, and discusses the treatment of scientists who have reported adverse effects in animal feeding experiments. This article concludes by exploring the role that politics and corporate interests have had in distorting an honest inquiry into the health effects of GMO crops. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An essay is presented on the limitations of clinical practice quality assessment tools and the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). It mentions that financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) on CPGs authors has compromised the trustworthiness and clinical utility of CPGs. It also argues that the existing methods of addressing FCOI will not protect against potential bias and will not offers solutions for reform.

Author(s): Sheldon Krimsky [1] The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science Horace Freeland Judson Harcourt, Inc., 2004 480 pp., , $28.00 Anyone who has read Horace Freeland Judson's magnum opus on [...]