• Meera Viswanathan, Timothy S Carey, Suzanne E Belinson, Elise Berliner, Stephanie M Chang, Elaine Graham, Jeanne-Marie Guise, Stanley Ip, Margaret A Maglione, Douglas C McCrory, Melissa McPheeters, Sydne J Newberry, Priyanka Sista, and C Michael White.
• Social, Statistical, and Environmental Sciences, RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA. Electronic address: viswanathan@rti.org.
• J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Nov 1; 67 (11): 1229-38.

ObjectivesGroups such as the Institute of Medicine emphasize the importance of attention to financial conflicts of interest. Little guidance exists, however, on managing the risk of bias for systematic reviews from nonfinancial conflicts of interest. We sought to create practical guidance on ensuring adequate clinical or content expertise while maintaining independence of judgment on systematic review teams.Study Design And SettingWorkgroup members built on existing guidance from international and domestic institutions on managing conflicts of interest. We then developed practical guidance in the form of an instrument for each potential source of conflict.ResultsWe modified the Institute of Medicine's definition of conflict of interest to arrive at a definition specific to nonfinancial conflicts. We propose questions for funders and systematic review principal investigators to evaluate the risk of nonfinancial conflicts of interest. Once risks have been identified, options for managing conflicts include disclosure followed by no change in the systematic review team or activities, inclusion on the team along with other members with differing viewpoints to ensure diverse perspectives, exclusion from certain activities, and exclusion from the project entirely.ConclusionThe feasibility and utility of this approach to ensuring needed expertise on systematic reviews and minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest must be investigated.Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

11 keywords...

hide…