Exhausted By Reelin... Well Then Look At This !!

An analysis of dermatology guidelines dating from 2010 shows that information on guideline funding and authors�� conflicts of interest is insufficient (14). A study of S2 and S3 guidelines of German specialist societies dating from 2009 to 2011 shows, in particular, significant shortcomings in handling conflicts of interest: although the practice of disclosing conflicts of interest has become established, the duty to disclose them does not lead to discernible countermeasures (10). However, the majority of all AWMF guidelines, approximately 60%, are S1 guidelines (23). These provide recommendations which may sometimes even have legal consequences if breached (24). S1 guidelines are developed as a Reelin result of informal consensus reached by a group of experts. This makes it particularly important that authors�� conflicts of interest be handled transparently. Because there are no studies as yet on conflicts of interest among authors of S1 guidelines, this study addressed the following questions: How frequently are conflicts of interest declared in S1 guidelines, and what information about them is provided? Are authors of guidelines on the use of drugs more likely to have financial conflicts of interest than those of guidelines on other subjects? Do any consequences result from declared conflicts of interest? Are the AWMF��s April 2010 recommendations on handling conflicts of interest implemented? Methods On 2 December 2013 there were a total of 449 current S1 guidelines on the AWMF homepage (23). This study investigated guidelines that had been finalized at least six months after the publication of the AWMF��s recommendations in April 2010: S1 guidelines dated 1?November 2010 to 1 November 2013. Guideline texts, guideline reports, and conflict of interest statements were searched for information on conflicts of interest, and this information was downloaded. For every text, several investigators (Henry Pachl, Stephan Schmutz, and Gisela Schott) ascertained how many people were listed as authors and whether any conflicts of interest were stated. Where necessary, consensus was reached between these investigators after consulting the documents in question again. When conflicts of interest were stated (e.g. in the AWMF form), the information was evaluated. The AWMF form contains questions on the following points, among others (22): Acting as a consultant or expert in a health care company Lecture or training fees Financing (third-party funds) for research, staff funding Ownership interests in drugs/medical devices Possession of company stock or shares Personal relationships with a company��s authorized representative Membership in specialist societies/professional associations Academic or personal interests Employer(s) within the last three years. The point referring to employers was not included in the evaluation.