• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

On bias and transparency in the development of influential recommendations.

作者信息

Laupacis Andreas

机构信息

Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.

出版信息

CMAJ. 2006 Jan 31;174(3):335-6. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.051622.

DOI:10.1503/cmaj.051622
PMID:16446476
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1373717/
Abstract
摘要

相似文献

1
On bias and transparency in the development of influential recommendations.关于有影响力的建议制定过程中的偏差与透明度
CMAJ. 2006 Jan 31;174(3):335-6. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.051622.
2
Analysis of American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline Author Self-Disclosure Compared With Open Payments Industry Disclosure.美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会指南作者自我披露与公开支付行业披露的比较分析。
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019 Dec;12(12):e005613. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005613. Epub 2019 Dec 3.
3
Commercialism and medicine: an overview.商业主义与医学：概述
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2007 Fall;16(4):377-86; discussion 439-42. doi: 10.1017/s0963180107070478.
4
New rules on conflict of interest: what has to be done in Europe?利益冲突新规则：欧洲必须做些什么？
Tumori. 2010 Jan-Feb;96(1):180-1. doi: 10.1177/030089161009600133.
5
Transparency is key.透明度是关键。
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2014 Jan 17;111(3):37. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2014.0037a.
6
Expert evidence: do you have all the facts?专家证据：你掌握了所有事实吗？
BJU Int. 2000 Aug;86(3):291-3. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00295.x.
7
ACCF/AHA consensus conference report on professionalism and ethics.
Circulation. 2004 Oct 19;110(16):2506-49. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000147952.60985.b0.
8
Task force 5: Expert testimony and opinions.第五特别工作组：专家证词与意见。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Oct 19;44(8):1747-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.08.042.
9
"The whole truth" versus "the admissible truth": an ethics dilemma for expert witnesses.“全部真相”与“可采信的真相”：专家证人面临的伦理困境
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2003;31(4):422-7.
10
Ethics and Disclosure.伦理与信息披露
Foot Ankle Int. 2019 Mar;40(3):364. doi: 10.1177/1071100719826957. Epub 2019 Jan 30.

引用本文的文献

1
Policies on doctors' declaration of interests in medical organisations: a thematic analysis.医生在医疗机构申报利益政策：主题分析。
J R Soc Med. 2023 Sep;116(9):295-306. doi: 10.1177/01410768231181248. Epub 2023 Jun 8.
2
Financial Conflicts of Interest in Propensity Score-Matched Studies Evaluating Biologics and Biosimilars for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.评估用于炎症性肠病的生物制剂和生物类似药的倾向评分匹配研究中的财务利益冲突
J Can Assoc Gastroenterol. 2022 Jun 1;5(5):214-220. doi: 10.1093/jcag/gwac018. eCollection 2022 Oct.
3
Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Systematic Review.临床实践指南中的利益冲突：一项系统评价。
Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Jan 19;5(2):466-475. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2020.09.016. eCollection 2021 Apr.
4
Potential Conflict of Interest and Bias in the RACGP's Smoking Cessation Guidelines: Are GPs Provided with the Best Advice on Smoking Cessation for their Patients?澳大利亚皇家全科医师学院戒烟指南中的潜在利益冲突与偏见：全科医生是否获得了针对患者戒烟的最佳建议？
Public Health Ethics. 2015 Nov;8(3):319-331. doi: 10.1093/phe/phv010. Epub 2015 Apr 20.
5
Transparency in reimbursement decisions: in whose best interest?报销决策的透明度：符合谁的最大利益？
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Aug;32(8):725-7. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0176-4.
6
Guideline standardisation, cost effectiveness, industry needs and conflict of interest.指南标准化、成本效益、行业需求与利益冲突。
Mens Sana Monogr. 2007 Jan;5(1):56-78. doi: 10.4103/0973-1229.32150.
7
Conflict of interest in clinical practice guideline development: a systematic review.临床实践指南制定中的利益冲突：系统评价。
PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25153. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025153. Epub 2011 Oct 19.
8
Moving from opacity to transparency in pharmaceutical policy.推动药品政策从不透明走向透明。
CMAJ. 2008 Feb 12;178(4):428-31. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.070799.
9
Evidence and advocacy: are all things considered?证据与宣传：是否考虑了所有因素？
CMAJ. 2006 Jun 20;174(13):1856. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060231.

本文引用的文献

1
Canadian Diabetes Association 2013 clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada. Introduction.加拿大糖尿病协会2013年加拿大糖尿病预防与管理临床实践指南。引言。
Can J Diabetes. 2013 Apr;37 Suppl 1:S1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2013.01.009. Epub 2013 Mar 26.
2
Conflicts of interest and independent data analysis in industry-funded studies.
JAMA. 2005 Nov 23;294(20):2575; author reply 2576-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.20.2575-a.
3
Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms.评估治疗危害的系统评价中的挑战。
Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jun 21;142(12 Pt 2):1090-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_part_2-200506211-00009.
4
Is this clinical trial fully registered? A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.该临床试验是否已完全注册？来自国际医学期刊编辑委员会的声明。
CMAJ. 2005 Jun 21;172(13):1700-2. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.050600. Epub 2005 May 23.
5
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.随机试验中结果选择性报告的实证证据：方案与已发表文章的比较。
JAMA. 2004 May 26;291(20):2457-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457.
6
Publication bias in clinical research.临床研究中的发表偏倚。
Lancet. 1991 Apr 13;337(8746):867-72. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y.