Conflicts Of Interest In Clinical Practice Guidelines: Accelerating An Evolution. An Endocrine Society Consensus Statement (Vol 103, Pg 4339, 2018)

An analysis of the Endocrine Society's clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published from 2010 to 2017-presented by Irwig et al. in the current issue of The Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism-suggested that the Endocrine Society met five of seven National Academy of Medicine (NAM) standards concerning financial conflicts of interest in CPGs. As current contributors to the Endocrine Society's CPG efforts, we offer additional context related to the 2011 NAM standards and the current environment concerning industry support in medicine, and we comment on the nature of industry support received by the Society's CPG authors according to Irwig and colleagues' analysis of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Open Payments database. Perhaps most importantly, we outline the Society's recent and ongoing efforts to enhance the value of its CPGs. Such efforts include a 2016 revision of CPG author conflict of interest rules-a change that was invisible to the investigatory methods used by Irwig et al.-in addition to other processes designed to enhance CPG objectivity. We conclude our commentary by recognizing that good-faith attempts to enhance transparency and to reduce conflicts of interest (real or apparent) in CPGs will ultimately serve the best interests of patients and providers; we confirm the Endocrine Society's resolute commitment to providing high-quality, evidence-based clinical guidance via a CPG development process that faithfully accords with current CPG best practices.