A Systematic Appraisal of Conflicts of Interest and Researcher Allegiance in Clinical Studies of Dry Needling for Musculoskeletal Pain Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and methods of conflicts of interest (COI) reporting in published dry needling (DN) studies and to determine the frequency of researcher allegiance (RA). METHODS: A pragmatic systematic search was undertaken to identify DN studies that were included in systematic reviews. Information regarding COI and RA were extracted from the full text of the published DN reports, and study authors were sent a survey inquiring about the presence of RA. A secondary analysis also was undertaken based on study quality/risk of bias scores that were extracted from the corresponding systematic reviews and study funding extracted from each DN study. RESULTS: Sixteen systematic reviews were identified, containing 60 studies of DN for musculoskeletal pain disorders, 58 of which were randomized controlled trials. Of the DN studies, 53% had a COI statement. None of these studies disclosed a COI. Nineteen (32%) authors of DN studies responded to the survey. According to the RA survey, 100% of DN studies included at least 1 RA criterion. According to the data extraction, 1 RA criterion was met in 45% of the DN studies. The magnitude of RA per study was 7 times higher according to the surveys than in the published reports. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that COI and RA might be underreported in studies of DN. In addition, authors of DN studies might be unaware of the potential influence of RA on study results and conclusions. IMPACT: Improved reporting of COI/RA might improve credibility of results and help identify the various factors involved in complex interventions provided by physical therapists. Doing so could help optimize treatments for musculoskeletal pain disorders provided by physical therapists.

Notas para decolonizar os estudos transpessoais no brasil: contribuições do pluriperspectivismo participativo / Notes for decolonizing transpersonal studies in brazil: contributions of participatory pluriperspectivism / Apuntes para la decolonización de los estudios transpersonales en brasil: aportes del pluriperspectivismo participativo

O campo dos estudos transpessoais tem avançado em diversas áreas no Brasil. Comemorou seus 40 anos com uma inserção ativa nas Instituições de Ensino Superior (IES) e uma ampliação de núcleos formativos e apoiadores de ensino, pesquisa e ações sociais, além de diálogos com o Sistema de Conselhos de Psicologia. Desafios são apresentados a partir do levantamento de uma série de questões importantes e ignoradas dentro da Psicologia Transpessoal no Brasil. Apresentamos o pluriperspectivismo participativo como possibilidade de decolonizar as matrizes eurocêntricas e estadunidenses, que dão suporte ao pensamento transpessoal brasileiro, buscando honrar nossas raízes históricas e incluir outras epistemologias e ontologias, que dão continuidade à crítica à lógica cartesiana moderna. Indicamos uma breve agenda de notas temáticas que carecem de um processo decolonizador no campo transpessoal: a) crítica às perspectivas de um pensamento hegemônico, em termos globais por meio da dominação Norte-Sul ou no campo das relações sociais; b) revisão das formas de "centrocentrismo"; c) questionamento da noção de universalismo das ciências e da ética; d) aprofundamento da análise crítica da supremacia restritiva da racionalidade formal técnico-científica em relação às formas de subjetividade, de vivências holísticas e integradoras e de valorização do corpo; e) revisão da noção de sujeito moderno desprovida da cocriação do humano com a comunidade, a história, a natureza e o cosmos.(AU)

The field of transpersonal studies has advanced in several areas in Brazil. It celebrated its 40th anniversary with an active insertion in Higher Education Institutions (HEI) and an expansion of training centers and supporters of teaching, research, and social actions, in addition to dialogues with the System of Councils of Psychology. Challenges are presented based on a survey of a series of important and ignored issues within Transpersonal Psychology in Brazil. We present participatory pluriperspectivism as a possibility to decolonize the Eurocentric and North American matrices that support Brazilian transpersonal thought, seeking to honor our historical roots and include other epistemologies and ontologies, which continue the critique of modern Cartesian logic. We indicate a brief agenda of thematic notes that lack a decolonizing process in the transpersonal field: a) criticism of the perspectives of a hegemonic thought, whether in global terms via North-South domination or in the field of social relations; b) review of the forms of "centrocentrism"; c) questioning of the notion of universalism of science and ethics; d) deepening of the critical analysis of the restrictive supremacy of the technical-scientific formal rationality in relation to the forms of subjectivity, of holistic and integrative experiences, and of valuing the body; e) review of the notion of the modern subject devoid of the co-creation of the human with the community, the history, the nature, and the cosmos.(AU)

El campo de los estudios transpersonales ha avanzado en varias áreas de Brasil. Se celebró su 40.º aniversario con una inserción activa en Instituciones de Educación Superior (IES) y una ampliación de los centros de formación y promotores de la docencia, la investigación y la acción social, además de diálogos con el Sistema de Consejos de Psicología. Los desafíos se presentan a partir de una encuesta de una serie de temas importantes e ignorados dentro de la Psicología Transpersonal en Brasil. Presentamos el pluriperspectivismo participativo como una posibilidad para decolonizar las matrices eurocéntrica y americana, que sustentan el pensamiento transpersonal brasileño, buscando honrar nuestras raíces históricas e incluir otras epistemologías y ontologías que continúan la crítica de la lógica cartesiana moderna. Indicamos una breve agenda de apuntes temáticos que carecen de un proceso decolonizador en el campo transpersonal: a) crítica de las perspectivas de un pensamiento hegemónico, ya sea en términos globales a través del dominio Norte-Sur o en el campo de las relaciones sociales; b) revisión de las formas de "centrocentrismo"; c) cuestionamiento de la noción de universalismo de la ciencia y la ética; d) profundización del análisis crítico de la supremacía restrictiva de la racionalidad formal técnico-científica en relación a las formas de subjetividad, de experiencias holísticas e integradoras y de valoración del cuerpo; e) revisión de la noción de sujeto moderno desprovisto de la cocreación de lo humano con la comunidad, la historia, la naturaleza y el cosmos.(AU)

Conflict of Interests in the Scientific Production on Vitamin D and COVID-19: A Scoping Review.

The use of scientific evidence to support the process of formulating and implementing public policies might be biased by studies funded by the pharmaceutical and food industry, which more often than not meet corporate interests. This review aimed to analyze the occurrence of conflict of interest (COI) in academic production regarding vitamin D and COVID-19, considering the facility offered during the pandemic for academic publications of heterogeneous quality. A scoping review of observational studies published in Medline, Lilacs, and Google Scholar databases was carried out. The selected studies were published between December 2019 and August 2021, focused on the relationship between vitamin D and prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in non-institutionalized individuals, with no language restrictions. Twenty-nine studies met eligibility criteria. COI was disclosed in five papers and further identified by review authors in eight other papers, meaning COI was present in thirteen papers (44.8%). Studies were funded by companies in the diagnostics, pharmaceutical and food sectors. Conclusions favorable to vitamin D supplementation were more prevalent in papers where COI was identified (9/13, 69.2%) than among papers where COI was not found (4/16, 25.0%). Omissions of disclosure of COI, funding source, and sponsor functions were observed. The identification of possible corporate political activities in scientific papers about vitamin D published during the COVID-19 pandemic signals a need for greater transparency and guideline development on the prevention of COI in scientific production.

A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.

Our objective was to examine conflicts of interest between the UK's health-focused All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) and the pharmaceutical industry between 2012 and 2018. APPGs are informal cross-party groups revolving around a particular topic run by and for Members of the UK's Houses of Commons and Lords. They facilitate engagement between parliamentarians and external organisations, disseminate knowledge, and generate debate through meetings, publications, and events. We identified APPGs focusing on physical or mental health, wellbeing, health care, or treatment and extracted details of their payments from external donors disclosed on the Register for All-Party Parliamentary Groups. We identified all donors which were pharmaceutical companies and pharmaceutical industry-funded patient organisations. We established that sixteen of 146 (11%) health-related APPGs had conflicts of interest indicated by reporting payments from thirty-five pharmaceutical companies worth £1,211,345.81 (16.6% of the £7,283,414.90 received by all health-related APPGs). Two APPGs (Health and Cancer) received more than half of the total value provided by drug companies. Fifty APPGs also had received payments from patient organisations with conflicts of interest, indicated by reporting 304 payments worth £986,054.94 from 57 (of 84) patient organisations which had received £27,883,556.3 from pharmaceutical companies across the same period. In total, drug companies and drug industry-funded patient organisations provided a combined total of £2,197,400.75 (30.2% of all funding received by health-related APPGs) and 468 (of 1,177-39.7%) payments to 58 (of 146-39.7%) health-related APPGs, with the APPG for Cancer receiving the most funding. In conclusion, we found evidence of conflicts of interests through APPGs receiving substantial income from pharmaceutical companies. Policy influence exerted by the pharmaceutical industry needs to be examined holistically, with an emphasis on relationships between actors potentially playing part in its lobbying campaigns. We also suggest ways of improving transparency of payment reporting by APPGs and pharmaceutical companies.

Personal Payments from Pharmaceutical Companies to Authors of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. It is unknown whether participation on clinical practice guideline committees is associated with differences in the amounts of industry money received. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study from August 2013 to December 2018. We manually abstracted membership records of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines committees for the 20 most common cancers and linked to Open Payments. The study sample included medical oncologists selected to join an NCCN Guidelines committee ("joiners") during the study period. Joiners were matched 1:2 to medical oncologists who had no participation on NCCN committees (controls) by gender, NCCN institution, and medical school graduation year. We performed difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation to assess whether selection to an NCCN committee was associated with the dollar value of payments received from industry, using generalized estimating equations to address correlation between matched pairs and between repeated observations of the same pair. RESULTS: During the study period, 54 physicians joined an NCCN Guidelines committee. These physicians received more payments than matched controls in the year prior to joining ($11,259 vs. $3,427; p = .02); this difference did not increase in the year after joining (DiD = $731; p = .45). CONCLUSION: Medical oncologists selected to NCCN Guidelines committees had greater financial ties to industry than their peers. The potential influence of industry in oncology clinical practice guidelines may be reduced through the selection of committee members with fewer ties to industry. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. This creates concern about the potential for industry influence on guidelines. However, it is unknown whether oncologists who author guidelines have greater industry relationships than their peers. This study compared medical oncologists who were newly selected to join a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines panel with medical oncologists at the same institutions and at similar career stages. At the time they joined, oncologists joining NCCN Guidelines panels had received more than three times the dollar value of industry payments than their peers. The potential for industry influence may be reduced by the selection of less-conflicted panel members.

Association Between Conflict of Interest and Published Position on Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation for Sleep Apnea.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is an association between authors' financial conflict of interest and published position on clinical use of hypoglossal nerve stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: International roster of authors and articles analyzed. METHODS: A Google Scholar search was performed for editorials and reviews citing the 2014 New England Journal of Medicine article on hypoglossal nerve stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea. Included articles were coded as favorable or neutral. Conflict of interest was recorded as declared by the authors in these articles and as independently searched in the Open Payments registry. RESULTS: Sixteen articles from 45 independent authors were analyzed. Nine articles by authors were coded as favorable. Among authors of articles with favorable views, 16 (59%) had a financial conflict of interest with the manufacturer of the hypoglossal nerve stimulator device, as opposed to only 1 of 21 (5%) authors of neutral/unfavorable articles. When we included only authors to whom payments could be identified or excluded on Open Payments, 16 of 20 (80%; 95% CI, 62%-98%) authors of favorable articles had a financial conflict, while 1 of 10 (10%; 95% CI, 0%-29.6%) of neutral/unfavorable articles did (P = .004). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates an association between published position on hypoglossal nerve stimulator use and financial conflict with the device manufacturer. Several undeclared conflicts were also found, suggesting a role for independent search for conflicts during the review process.

Is clinical expertise a conflict of interest in research?

PURPOSE: Doctors who research and provide abortion care have had their work characterized as a conflict of interest. We investigated whether surgeons who perform medical procedures other than abortion also routinely conduct research on that procedure and whether they disclose this as a relevant "conflict of interest." METHOD: We conducted a two-step literature review of five medical procedures-abortion, rhinoplasty, Mohs micrographic surgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, and laminectomy. We identified articles published between June 2011 and May 2012, and we calculated the proportion of articles authored by clinicians who also perform that procedure as well as the percentage that reported clinical care as a conflict of interest. We then screened conflict of interest statements on publications on said procedures from the same journals between 2012 and 2019 and calculated the proportion of publications that reported clinical work as a conflict of interest. RESULTS: We identified 135 publications that met inclusion criteria. We calculated that 100% of publications on rhinoplasty, transurethral resection of the prostate, and Mohs included a clinician who performs that procedure. Seventy-five percent of publications on laminectomy and 78% of publications on abortion included a clinician. None of the reviewed research articles included a disclosure that the authors also performed the procedure. From 2012 to 2019, there were 1,903 published articles on these procedures. None included a conflict of interest that disclosed clinical work as a conflict of interest. CONCLUSION: Although abortion providers publish as clinician-researchers at rates similar to surgeons in other areas of medicine, they alone face accusations that their clinical expertise is a potential conflict of interest. This stigmatizing practice could have wide-ranging consequences including delegitimization of the scientific method and peer review process broadly.

Trends in reported industry payments to physicians practicing cardiac electrophysiology from 2013 to 2018 in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The need for transparency in financial relationships in the healthcare system, has culminated in Open Payments database, managed by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Since its inception in 2013, the trend in such payments to physicians practicing cardiac electrophysiology was not examined. METHODS AND RESULTS: Payment information reported to CMS from January 2013 to December 2018 was obtained from the publicly available Open Payments data set using the online query tool. The data were analyzed by an individual provider and by state. An in-depth analysis of payments in the year 2018 payments was performed. From 2014 to 2018, there was an 18% increase in the total number of payments reported from 88 877 payments in 2014 to 105 000 in 2018. Despite the increase in the total number of payments reported, the average payment steadily decreased over time, resulting in an overall reduction in the total amount of payments from 2014 to 2018 ($34.9 million to $28.2 million). Payments to the top 5% of individual recipients have also decreased over this time. In 2018, 2888 unique providers received reportable payments, a total of 105 000 payments, with a median payment amount of $1378 (interquartile range: $165-$5781). The majority of these payments were for food and beverage (82%) and travel/lodging (10%). The top five payers include Boston Scientific, Medtronic Vascular, Abbott Laboratories, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Biotronik. CONCLUSION: Among cardiac electrophysiologists, there is increased reporting of payments in the Open Payments program over time, with a notable decrease in the payment amount.

Financial conflicts of interest among National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guideline panelists in 2019.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are evidence-based guidelines that serve as a standard of care in oncology practice, reimbursements, and quality improvement initiatives. To our knowledge, the extent of financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines have not been systemically evaluated. The current study evaluated the extent of FCOIs in the NCCN CPGs for the most common malignancies in the United States. METHODS: The authors examined the latest 2019 versions of the NCCN CPGs for the 10 most common cancers by incidence in the United States. Using disclosure lists, they catalogued the FCOIs for the panelists under various categories outlined in the CPG. The authors also tabulated the companies and institutions involved in each panel disclosure. An "episode" describes 1 instance of participation of a panelist in 1 company in 1 category of each guideline. "Affiliation" describes an industrial, commercial, or institutional affiliation reported by a panelist in each episode. RESULTS: Of the 491 panelists on the CPG panel, 483 (98.3%) completed FCOI disclosures. A total of 224 (46.4%) reported at least 1 FCOI episode. A total of 1103 episodes were disclosed with an average of 4.9 episodes reported per panelist with FCOIs. Acting as part of scientific advisory boards, as a consultant, or as an expert witness was the most common FCOI category (19.9%). A total of 191 companies were associated with 1103 episodes of FCOI. The top companies were Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech, and AstraZeneca. Among cancers, the prevalence of FCOIs was highest for lung cancer (56%), bladder cancer (52%), pancreatic cancer (52%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (50%), kidney cancer (49%), colorectal cancer (43%), breast cancer (42%), melanoma (40%), prostate cancer (38%), and uterine cancer (32%). Among the panelists with FCOIs, 26%, 17%, and 57%, respectively, reported 1, 2, and >3 episodes. There were 127 episodes noted among the CPG chairs and/or vice chairs who reported FCOIs (mean, 6.4 episodes). The chairs and/or vice chairs of CPGs for uterine cancer, pancreatic cancer, melanoma, and prostate cancer were not found to have any FCOIs. CONCLUSIONS: FCOIs are very prevalent among NCCN CPG panelists. In nearly one-half of the CPGs, the majority of the panelists had at least 1 FCOI. Greater than one-half of the CPG chairs and/or vice chairs reported multiple FCOIs. Further research studies are necessary to determine the impact of these FCOIs.

Lessons learned from the fight against COVID-19 in the Great Maghreb.Five lessons for better resilience.

OBJECTIVE: To compile the lessons learned in the Greater Maghreb, during the first six months of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, in the field of "capacity building" of community resilience. METHODS: An expert consultation was conducted during the first week of May 2020, using the "Delphi" technique. An email was sent requesting the formulation of a lesson, in the form of a "Public Health" good practice recommendation. The final text of the lessons was finalized by the group coordinator and validated by the signatories of the manuscript. RESULTS: A list of five lessons of resilience has been deduced and approved : 1. Elaboration of "white plans" for epidemic management; 2. Training in epidemic management; 3. Uniqueness of the health system command; 4. Mobilization of retirees and volunteers; 5. Revision of the map sanitary. CONCLUSION: Based on the evaluation of the performance of the Maghreb fight against COVID-19, characterized by low resilience, this list of lessons could constitute a roadmap for the reform of Maghreb health systems, towards more performance to manage possible waves of COVID-19 or new emerging diseases with epidemic tendency.

Photoselective vaporization of the prostate: study outcomes as a function of risk of bias, conflicts of interest, and industrial sponsorship.

PURPOSE: To investigate the outcomes of comparative studies on photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) as a function of risk of bias (RoB), conflicts of interest (COI), and industrial sponsorship (IS). METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search for comparative studies on PVP [randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (NRCSs)]. Study selection as well as comprehensive assessment of RoB, COIs, and IS were performed in duplicate. The identified studies were further rated by two independent board-certified urologists as either PVP-favourable or PVP-unfavourable. Descriptive statistics were performed among all identified studies and among the subgroups of studies rated as favourable and unfavourable, respectively. RESULTS: Sixty-five studies qualified for inclusion (25 RTCs and 40 NRCSs) of which 56 (86%) were rated favourable and 9 (14%) unfavourable. A majority of all studies mentioned the absence/presence of potential COIs (78%). In contrast, a sponsorship statement was only found in 29% of the investigations. Studies rated favourable demonstrated a higher percentage of COIs (39% versus 22%). IS was exclusively found among favourable studies. Furthermore, a serious or critical RoB was more often found in favourably rated NRCSs. CONCLUSIONS: COIs and IS seem to be associated with favourable study outcomes in comparative studies on PVP. The transparency of the whole research process from study conception to the dissemination of the results has to be further improved to prevent a harmful effect of COIs and IS on the internal validity of studies.

Reporting quality of 2014-2018 clinical practice guidelines on diabetes according to the RIGHT checklist.

OBJECTIVE: Reporting Items for Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist was used as a tool to assess the reporting quality of 2014-2018 CPGs on diabetes treatment, aiming to promote the application of RIGHT and improve the reporting quality of future guidelines. METHODS: We searched Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, VIP database, Medline, Embase, Allied, and Complementary MEdicine Database (AMED), and Medlive and Google Scholar (Google academics), and collected published CPGs on diabetes with published date during 1st January, 2014 and 7th November, 2018. CPGs on diabetes issued since 2014 were included and filtered by two reviewers independently. Then the basic information extraction and RIGHT evaluation of the included CPG are carried out. RESULTS: A total of 34 guidelines were included, out of which 7 are for Chinese and 27 for other countries. Overall, basic information (domain 1) got the highest (64.66%) reporting rate, while financing and conflict-of-interest statements and management (domain 6) got the lowest (8.1%). For all guidelines, classification of guidelines (item 1c) was sufficiently reported, and description of the specific sources of funding for all stages of guideline development (item 18a) was not reported. For Chinese CPGs, financing and conflict-of-interest statements and management (domain 6) was most insufficiently reported, and only identification of guideline in the title (item 1a), corresponding information of the developer or author (item 4), description of basic epidemiology (item 5), and subgroup description (item 7b) out of 22 items were better reported than foreign guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the CPGs on diabetes during 2014-2018 adhered to ~41% RIGHT checklist, of which Chinese CPGs adhered less than that of foreign guidelines. It is suggested that the RIGHT reporting checklist should be endorsed and used by CPG developers to ensure higher quality and adequate use of guidelines.

Evaluating the Strength of the Association Between Industry Payments and Prescribing Practices in Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry are common, but factors that may determine whether such relationships result in physician practice changes are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated physician use of orally administered cancer drugs for four cancers: prostate (abiraterone, enzalutamide), renal cell (axitinib, everolimus, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib), lung (afatinib, erlotinib), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML; dasatinib, imatinib, nilotinib). Separate physician cohorts were defined for each cancer type by prescribing history. The primary exposure was the number of calendar years during 2013-2015 in which a physician received payments from the manufacturer of one of the studied drugs; the outcome was relative prescribing of that drug in 2015, compared with the other drugs for that cancer. We evaluated whether practice setting at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center, receipt of payments for purposes other than education or research (compensation payments), maximum annual dollar value received, and institutional conflict-of-interest policies were associated with the strength of the payment-prescribing association. We used modified Poisson regression to control confounding by other physician characteristics. RESULTS: Physicians who received payments for a drug in all 3 years had increased prescribing of that drug (compared with 0 years), for renal cell (relative risk [RR] 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-2.07), CML (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.39), and lung (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.58-1.82), but not prostate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93-1.02). Physicians who received compensation payments or >$100 annually had increased prescribing compared with those who did not, but NCI setting and institutional conflict-of-interest policies were not consistently associated with the direction of prescribing change. CONCLUSION: The association between industry payments and cancer drug prescribing was greatest among physicians who received payments consistently (within each calendar year). Receipt of payments for compensation purposes, such as for consulting or travel, and higher dollar value of payments were also associated with increased prescribing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Financial payments from pharmaceutical companies are common among oncologists. It is known from prior work that oncologists tend to prescribe more of the drugs made by companies that have given them money. By combining records of industry gifts with prescribing records, this study identifies the consistency of payments over time, the dollar value of payments, and payments for compensation as factors that may strengthen the association between receiving payments and increased prescribing of that company's drug.

Evidence Underlying Recommendations and Payments from Industry to Authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are among the most widely used guidance in oncology. It is critical to understand the extent to which the recommendations in these guidelines are supported by evidence and to investigate whether these recommendations have been influenced by payments from industry to authors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined the quality and consistency of evidence, as scored by guidelines authors, for systemic treatment incorporated in the NCCN guidelines. Payments data in 2015 were manually abstracted using the Open Payments database, which discloses all payments between the industry and American physicians. Correlations between the percentage of authors who received payments and the proportion of recommendations developed from low-level evidence per guideline were calculated using Spearman rank correlation. RESULTS: In total, 1,782 recommendations were identified in 29 guidelines, of which 1,282 (71.9%) were based on low-quality or low-consistency evidence (low-level evidence), including "case reports or clinical experience only" (18.9%). A substantial proportion (31/143, 21.7%) of category 1 (the highest level) recommendations were based on low-level evidence. The majority of authors (87.1%) received payments from industry. However, no association was found between the prevalence of payments among authors and the percentage of recommendations developed from low-level evidence per guideline. CONCLUSION: The majority of systemic treatment recommendations in the NCCN guidelines are based on low-level evidence, including more than one in five category 1 recommendations. Payments from industry were prevalent among authors. However, industrial payments among authors were not associated with inclusion of regimen/agent for which there is no conclusive evidence in the guidelines. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The authors found that the majority (71.9%) of systemic treatment recommendations issued in the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were based on low-level evidence. Physicians should remain cautious when using current guidelines as the sole source guiding patient care decisions.

Assessing the methodological and reporting quality of network meta-analyses in Chinese medicine.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of network meta-analyses (NMAs) in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) have been published recently, but the quality of them was lack of assessment. This study aims to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of NMAs in TCM. METHODS: Six electronic databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) from inception to January 2018, were searched. NMAs of TCM were included. A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and the PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions (PRISMA-NMA) were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included NMAs. RESULTS: A total of 40 NMAs, including 2535 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), were included. They were published between December 2012 and November 2017. The median score and interquartile range of methodological and reporting quality was 7 (6-8) and 22 (19.1-27.1). Serious methodological flaws existed in the following aspects: the status of publication (22.5%), a list of studies provided (0%), assessment of publication bias (37.5%), and conflicts of interest (12.5%). Several items need to be improved in reporting, especially for Protocol and registration (2.5%), Data items (22.5%), Risk of bias across studies (Methods section) (37.5%), Results of individual studies (27.5%), Risk of bias across studies (Results section) (40%), Results of additional analyses (35%), and Funding (15%). CONCLUSIONS: The methodological and reporting quality of NMAs in TCM is moderate. Identified shortcomings of published NMAs should be taken into consideration in further trainings of authors and editors of NMAs in TCM. Future researchers should be encouraged to apply PRISMA-NMA, and a recognized tool for the assessment of NMA methodology was wanted.