Logo image
Evidence Underlying Recommendations and Payments from Industry to Authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines
期刊文章   開放取用(OA)   同儕審查

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

Xu Liu, Ling-Long Tang, Yan-Ping Mao, Qing Liu, Ying Sun, Lei Chen, Jin-Ching LinJun Ma
Oncologist, 卷.24(4), 頁碼.498-504
04/2019
PMID: 30459237

摘要

Cancer chemotherapy Cancer treatment Clinical practice guidelines Conflict of interest National Comprehensive Cancer Network Open Payments database Oncology Cancer Research
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.

檔案與連結 (1)

url
https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0655檢視
已出版(紀錄版本) 開放

相關連結

指標

1 檢視次數

詳細資料

Logo image