Transparency of clinical practice guideline funding: a cross-sectional analysis of the German AWMF registry
Abstract Background While reporting of individual conflicts of interest is formalised, it is unclear to what extent the funding of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is formally reported. The aim of this study is to explore the accuracy and comprehensiveness of reporting on funding in German CPGs....
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2023-05-01
|
| Series: | BMC Medical Ethics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00913-0 |
| _version_ | 1797822703078473728 |
|---|---|
| author | Hendrik Napierala Angela Schuster Sabine Gehrke-Beck Christoph Heintze |
| author_facet | Hendrik Napierala Angela Schuster Sabine Gehrke-Beck Christoph Heintze |
| author_sort | Hendrik Napierala |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background While reporting of individual conflicts of interest is formalised, it is unclear to what extent the funding of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is formally reported. The aim of this study is to explore the accuracy and comprehensiveness of reporting on funding in German CPGs. Methods We searched for CPGs in the registry of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany in July 2020. Information on guideline funding was categorised by two reviewers independently and discrepancies were clarified by discussion with a third reviewer. Accuracy and comprehensiveness of reporting on funding was assessed using the German Instrument for Methodological Guideline Appraisal (DELBI). Results We included 507 CPGs published between 2015 and 2020 in the main analysis. 23/507 (4.5%) of the CPGs achieved the highest DELBI score by including information on funding sources, expenses and the amount of funding provided, as well as a statement on the independence of the guideline authors from the funding institution(s). CPGs with more rigorous methodological requirements (systematic review of the literature and/or structured consensus-building) received higher DELBI scores. Conclusion German CPGs do not communicate their funding transparently. Transparency of CPG funding could be achieved by making it mandatory to publish information for all guidelines. For that purpose, a standardised form and guidance should be developed. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T10:13:03Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e5657a84c0f74bec83aaaea4d55b4f51 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1472-6939 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T10:13:03Z |
| publishDate | 2023-05-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Medical Ethics |
| spelling | doaj.art-e5657a84c0f74bec83aaaea4d55b4f512023-05-21T11:26:31ZengBMCBMC Medical Ethics1472-69392023-05-012411810.1186/s12910-023-00913-0Transparency of clinical practice guideline funding: a cross-sectional analysis of the German AWMF registryHendrik Napierala0Angela Schuster1Sabine Gehrke-Beck2Christoph Heintze3Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu BerlinInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu BerlinInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu BerlinInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu BerlinAbstract Background While reporting of individual conflicts of interest is formalised, it is unclear to what extent the funding of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is formally reported. The aim of this study is to explore the accuracy and comprehensiveness of reporting on funding in German CPGs. Methods We searched for CPGs in the registry of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany in July 2020. Information on guideline funding was categorised by two reviewers independently and discrepancies were clarified by discussion with a third reviewer. Accuracy and comprehensiveness of reporting on funding was assessed using the German Instrument for Methodological Guideline Appraisal (DELBI). Results We included 507 CPGs published between 2015 and 2020 in the main analysis. 23/507 (4.5%) of the CPGs achieved the highest DELBI score by including information on funding sources, expenses and the amount of funding provided, as well as a statement on the independence of the guideline authors from the funding institution(s). CPGs with more rigorous methodological requirements (systematic review of the literature and/or structured consensus-building) received higher DELBI scores. Conclusion German CPGs do not communicate their funding transparently. Transparency of CPG funding could be achieved by making it mandatory to publish information for all guidelines. For that purpose, a standardised form and guidance should be developed.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00913-0Meta researchGuideline developmentClinical practice guidelinesTransparencyGuideline fundingAWMF |
| spellingShingle | Hendrik Napierala Angela Schuster Sabine Gehrke-Beck Christoph Heintze Transparency of clinical practice guideline funding: a cross-sectional analysis of the German AWMF registry BMC Medical Ethics Meta research Guideline development Clinical practice guidelines Transparency Guideline funding AWMF |
| title | Transparency of clinical practice guideline funding: a cross-sectional analysis of the German AWMF registry |
| title_full | Transparency of clinical practice guideline funding: a cross-sectional analysis of the German AWMF registry |
| title_fullStr | Transparency of clinical practice guideline funding: a cross-sectional analysis of the German AWMF registry |
| title_full_unstemmed | Transparency of clinical practice guideline funding: a cross-sectional analysis of the German AWMF registry |
| title_short | Transparency of clinical practice guideline funding: a cross-sectional analysis of the German AWMF registry |
| title_sort | transparency of clinical practice guideline funding a cross sectional analysis of the german awmf registry |
| topic | Meta research Guideline development Clinical practice guidelines Transparency Guideline funding AWMF |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00913-0 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hendriknapierala transparencyofclinicalpracticeguidelinefundingacrosssectionalanalysisofthegermanawmfregistry AT angelaschuster transparencyofclinicalpracticeguidelinefundingacrosssectionalanalysisofthegermanawmfregistry AT sabinegehrkebeck transparencyofclinicalpracticeguidelinefundingacrosssectionalanalysisofthegermanawmfregistry AT christophheintze transparencyofclinicalpracticeguidelinefundingacrosssectionalanalysisofthegermanawmfregistry |