Patient protection from conflicted medical guidelines

A piece in the BMJ, “Ensuring the integrity of clinical practice guidelines: a tool for protecting patients,” lists:

Red flags that should raise substantial skepticism among guideline readers (and medical journals)

  • Sponsor(s) is a professional society that receives substantial industry funding;

  • Sponsor is a proprietary company, or is undeclared or hidden

  • Committee chair(s) have any financial conflict*

  • Multiple panel members have any financial conflict*

  • Any suggestion of committee stacking that would pre-ordain a recommendation regarding a controversial topic

  • No or limited involvement of an expert in methodology in the evaluation of evidence

  • No external review

  • No inclusion of non-physician experts/patient representative/community stakeholders

*Includes a panelist with either or both a financial relationship with a proprietary healthcare company and/or whose clinical practice/specialty depends on tests or interventions covered by the guideline

Journalist Jeanne Lenzer was one of the authors, and this work follows her earlier BMJ piece, “Why we can’t trust clinical guidelines.” In it, she concluded by writing:

(numerous) guidelines continue to be followed despite concerns about bias, because as one lecturer told a meeting on geriatric care in the Virgin Islands earlier this year, “We like to stick within the standard of care, because when the shit hits the fan we all want to be able to say we were just doing what everyone else is doing—even if what everyone else is doing isn’t very good.”


Follow us on Twitter:

and on Facebook.

Comments (1)

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who doesn't list what appears to be an actual email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don't give medical advice so we won't respond to questions asking for it. Please see more on our comments policy.

Michael mirochna

September 19, 2013 at 7:02 am

This is our Achilles. On one hand, we do things in modern medicine that are wasteful, expensive and harmful, often promoted by corrupted guidelines or dogmatic thinking. On the other, we have so much quackery that stands to gain from these kinds of fall outs. If the general public really knew how beneficial or not beneficial our treatments were (and what we think a good NNT or even an NNS is….), yikes.