Clinical Practice Guidelines of Rehabilitation: Composition of Expert Group and Situation of Conflict of Interest
10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2020.02.004
- VernacularTitle:康复临床实践指南：专家组构成及利益冲突研究
- Author:
Ling WANG
1
;
Shu-ya LU
2
,
3
;
Xu-fei LUO
1
;
Xuan YU
4
,
5
;
Meng LÜ
1
;
Xian-zhuo ZHANG
6
;
Xiu-e SHI
7
;
Yao-long CHEN
8
;
Ke-hu YANG
8
Author Information
1. School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
2. Sichuan Provincial People'
3. s Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan 610000, China
4. WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline
5. Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
6. the First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
7. Rehabilitation Center Hospital of Gansu, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
8. Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
rehabilitation medicine;
clinical practice guidelines;
conflict of interest;
working group of guidelines development
- From:
Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice
2020;26(2):150-155
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate and analyze the panel composition and conflict of interest management of clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation.Methods Clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation were systematically retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, China Biology Medicine disc, CNKI, Wanfang Data and Medlive database, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, National Guideline Clearinghouse, The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, World Health Organization (WHO) and Guidelines International Network until January 11, 2020. Two researchers independently screened and cross-checked the literatures, and extracted the basic information of included guidelines, including the title, formulating institution, published journol, as well as the expert group, the number of expert group, the specific division of labor and their discipline, affiliation and the geographic location, the statement and management of conflict of interest, types of conflicts of interest, and whether to accept fund and the source of the fund.Results A total of 84 guidelines were finally included, 17 domestic ones and 67 foreign ones, in which, 52 (61.9%) reported the expert panel; 22 (26.2%) reported the number of expert panel groups, 21 (25.0%) indicated the specific division of work among the members of the expert panel, 74 (88.1%) reported the names of the members of the expert panel, 47 (56.0%) reported the subjects and specialties of the panelists, 70 (83.3%) reported the affiliation and location of panelists, 14 (16.7%) mentioned the management of conflicts of interest, and 25 (29.8%) reported if there were conflicts of interest. Only five of the 16 funded guidelines stated that there was no conflict of interest between the funding and the development of the guidelines. Among them, the reporting rate of expert panel was significantly higher in foreign countries than in China (χ2 = 9.542, P < 0.01), the reporting rate of name of expert panel members and specific division of labor were higher in foreign countries than in China ( χ2 > 4.155, P < 0.05), and the reporting rate of conflict of interest management was also higher in foreign countries than in China ( P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in whether there was a conflict of interest, whether it was funded and the type of funding at home and abroad ( P > 0.05). Conclusion In gerenal, clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation published at home and abroad are necessary to be improved in the reporting quality of expert group formulation and division of labor, conflict of interest reporting and management. It is proposed that future guideline developers should follow the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, assign roles of experts, strengthen the management and reporting of conflicts of interest, and standarderize the development process and reporting of the guidelines.
