↓ Skip to main content

Conflicts of interest disclosure forms and management in critical care clinical practice guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
59 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Conflicts of interest disclosure forms and management in critical care clinical practice guidelines
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00134-018-5367-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Waleed Alhazzani, Kimberley Lewis, Roman Jaeschke, Bram Rochwerg, Morten Hylander Møller, Laura Evans, Kevin C. Wilson, Sheena Patel, Craig M. Coopersmith, Maurizio Cecconi, Gordon Guyatt, Elie A. Akl

Abstract

Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) require identification and careful management of conflicts of interest (COIs) among all participants in the guideline development. Furthermore, COIs are more common than anticipated. However, there are no universally accepted methods to identify and manage COIs. To describe and summarize the current COI disclosure forms and management policies in selected critical care professional societies that develop high-impact CPGs. In addition, we aim to provide suggestions to guideline developers on how to identify and manage different types of COIs. We searched PubMed and MEDLINE for CPGs published between 2013 and 2018 in English language and addressed general critical care topics. We then ranked the CPGs according to the numbers of citations and selected the first five critical care professional societies that sponsored the guidelines. We obtained the most recent COI declaration forms and management policies. Two reviewers abstracted data on different types of COI in each of the disclosure forms and management policies. All selected professional critical care societies require that members declare direct financial COIs; four societies inquire specifically about intellectual COIs (involvement in primary research). Three out of five societies require members to disclose indirect institutional financial COIs; however, none inquire about other forms of institutional COI. We developed, by consensus, a streamlined framework to classify and manage different types of COIs. The current COI disclosure forms of selected professional societies provide more attention to financial disclosures and COIs and less attention to detecting and managing intellectual COIs, while rarely addressing institutional COIs. We provide some suggestions for guideline developers on the classification and management of different COIs in the context of CPGs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Other 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 9 25%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 9 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,147,743
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,049
of 5,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,471
of 351,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#16
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.