| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
To compare the methods and outcomes of two guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of primary immune thrombocytopenia published in close proximity |
| Data |
Two clinical guidelines |
| Comparisons |
One clinical guideline with financial conflicts of interest (defined as unrestricted grants from pharmaceutical companies and financial associations among the authors with companies that manufacture products related to primary immune thrombocytopenia) and one clinical guideline without financial conflicts of interest |
| Outcomes |
Recommendations (classified by two different scales: 1) A, strong; B, intermediate; C, weak; or 2) 1, strong; 2, weak) |
| Funding source |
No funding was received for the study |
| Declaration of conflicts of interest |
JNG (lead author) has been a consultant, receiving honoraria, and receiving research funding from pharmaceutical companies. SKV (second author) has served as a biostatistician on an industry funded study |
| Notes |
|
| Risk of bias |
| Item |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Adequate document inclusion process |
No |
No systematic search for guidelines |
| Adequate coding of conflicts of interest |
Yes |
Three authors agreed that the information provided in the reporting of the two guidelines was concise and clear, and the authors of the study reported this information (according to personal correspondence with lead author) |
| Adequate coding of recommendations |
Yes |
The two included guidelines graded the recommendations made and the authors of the study reported this grading (according to personal correspondence with lead author) |
| Adequate dealing with confounding |
Yes |
Compared clinical guidelines of the same disease published within one year of each other in the same scientific journal |
