Independencia editorial y conflictos de interés en guías de práctica clínica sobre lesiones dermatológicas
- José María Rumbo Prieto 1
- Luis Arantón Areosa 1
- Camilo Daniel Raña Lama 1
- Juan Santiago Cortizas Rey 1
- Javier Sánchez Gálvez 2
- 1 Gerencia de Gestión Integrada de Ferrol
- 2 Policlínica Virgen de los Dolores, Cartagena (Murcia)
ISSN: 1888-3109, 2386-4818
Año de publicación: 2015
Año: 9
Número: 26
Páginas: 25-33
Tipo: Artículo
Otras publicaciones en: Enfermería Dermatológica
Resumen
Objective: To evaluate and compare the editorial independence and declaration of conflicts of interest of different Clinical practice Guidelines (CPG) on dermatological lesions. Methodology: Systematic review of CPG in active state (period 2011-2015), at the national and international level. Evaluation of item 22 and 23 the Domain 6 (editorial independence) of the AGREE Instrument II (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation). Method of review by 4 evaluators. Descriptive statistic. Results: We assessed 30 GPC (4 on psoriasis; 2 on radiodermitis, 10 on atopic dermatitis, 5 on burns, and 9 on skin cancer Melanoma and non-melanoma). Of these, 14 GPC accomplished very well with the Domain 6 (editorial independence) of AGREE II; 11 did so partially and 5 have not reached the minimum level. Conclusions: The evaluation of item 22 (editorial independence) is the one least accomplished and the most difficult to assess by the reviewers of GPC. The points of view of the financing entity, usually does not appear as an explicit statement and/or concise in expressing its influence on the final result of the recommendations of the GPC; as proposed by the AGREE II.