TABLE 3.

A summary of financial support and conflicts of interest reported by 78 included clinical practice guidelines

Category	Guidelines (n)	%
Status of guideline and update process
Original, and no mention of future update	10	13
Original, but plans to update in future	7	9
Update and describes update process	24	31
Update and no description of update process	25	32
Unclear	12	15
How was evidence gathered to support recommendations?
Systematic review—comprehensive (for example, 2+ databases, hand search, experts consulted)	39	50
Systematic review—not comprehensive or not clear (for example, 1 database, no hand search, no experts consulted)	17	22
Informal review (for example, hand search only or insufficient detail)	8	10
Not described	14	18
What methods were used to form recommendations?
Formal consensus (for example, Delphi method, Glaser techniques)	15	19
Informal consensus or not clear (for example, standard method not mentioned)	24	31
Voting system	14	18
Not described	25	32
Does the guideline clearly present supporting evidence for nutrition recommendations?
No	13	17
Yes	65	83
Was a funding source named or no funding declared?
No	31	40
Yes	47	60
Does the guideline state that the views of the funding body have not influenced the content of the guideline?
No, but funding source was not reported	31	40
No	29	37
Yes	10	13
Not applicable (no funding)	8	10
Were competing interests of guideline development group members disclosed?
No	11	14
Yes	67	86
Was an attempt made to reduce the effect of competing interests? (for example, excluding certain members from developing guidelines)
No (disclosed but not mitigated)	18	23
Yes	21	27
Unclear (not addressed)	39	50