OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among members of panels producing clinical practice guidelines on screening, treatment, or both for hyperlipidaemia or diabetes.

DESIGN

Cross sectional study.

SETTING

Relevant guidelines published by national organisations in the United States and Canada between 2000 and 2010.

PARTICIPANTS

Members of guideline panels.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among members of guideline panels and chairs of panels.

RESULTS

Fourteen guidelines met our search criteria, of which five had no accompanying declaration of conflicts of interest by panel members. 288 panel members had participated in the guideline development process. Among the 288 panel members, 138 (48%) reported conflicts of interest at the time of the publication of the guideline and 150 (52%) either stated that they had no such conflicts or did not have an opportunity to declare any. Among 73 panellists who formally declared no conflicts, 8 (11%) were found to have one or more. Twelve of the 14 guideline panels evaluated identified chairs, among whom six had financial conflicts of interest. Overall, 150 (52%) panel members had conflicts, of which 138 were declared and 12 were undeclared. Panel members from government sponsored guidelines were less likely to have conflicts of interest compared with guidelines sponsored by non-government sources (15/92 (16%) v 135/196 (69%); P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of financial conflicts of interest and their under-reporting by members of panels producing clinical practice guidelines on hyperlipidaemia or diabetes was high, and a relatively high proportion of guidelines did not have public disclosure of conflicts of interest. Organisations that produce guidelines should minimise conflicts of interest among panel members to ensure the credibility and evidence based nature of the guidelines' content.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

In routine practice, colonoscopy may fail to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC), especially in the proximal colon. A better endoscopic recognition of serrated polyps is important, as this pathway may explain some of the post-colonoscopy cancers. In this study, the endoscopic characteristics of serrated polyps were examined.

PATIENT AND METHODS

This was a cross-sectional, single-center study of all consecutive patients referred for elective colonoscopy during 1 year. The endoscopists were familiarized with the detection and treatment of nonpolypoid colorectal lesions. Serrated polyps were classified into high risk serrated polyps, defined as dysplastic or large (≥ 6 mm) proximal nondysplastic serrated polyps, and low risk serrated polyps including the remaining nondysplastic serrated polyps. Advanced colorectal neoplasms were defined as multiple (at least three),≥ 10 mm in size, high grade dysplastic adenomas or CRC.

RESULTS

A total of 2309 patients were included (46.1 % men, mean age 58.4 years), of whom 2.5 % (57) had at least one high risk serrated polyp and 13.9 % (322) had at least one advanced neoplasm. Overall, serrated polyps were more often nonpolypoid than adenomas (16.2 % vs. 11.1 %; P = 0.002). In total, 65 high risk serrated polyps were found, of which 43.1 % (28) displayed a nonpolypoid endoscopic appearance. Patients with advanced neoplasms were more likely to have synchronous high risk serrated polyps than patients without advanced neoplasms: OR 3.66 (95 % CI 2.03 - 6.61, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

High risk serrated polyps are frequently nonpolypoid and are associated with synchronous advanced colorectal neoplasms. Advanced colorectal neoplasms may therefore be considered red flags for the presence of high risk serrated polyps. Detection, diagnosis, and treatment of high risk serrated lesions may be important targets to improve the quality of colonoscopic cancer prevention.