Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Taken to task: what is and is not an appropriate response to an ERS guidelines task force?

Guy Joos, Andrew Bush, Otto Chris Burghuber, Carlos Robalo Cordeiro, Mina Gaga, G. John Gibson, Christina Gratziou, David Rigau, Gernot Rohde, Dan Smyth, Daiana Stolz, Thomy Tonia, Jørgen Vestbo, Tobias Welte, Guy Brusselle, Marc Miravitlles
European Respiratory Journal 2017 50: 1700952; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00952-2017
Guy Joos
1Ghent University Hospital, Dept of Respiratory Diseases, Ghent, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Bush
2National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: a.bush@imperial.ac.uk
Otto Chris Burghuber
3Otto Wagner Hospital Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carlos Robalo Cordeiro
4University Hospital of Coimbra, Dept of Pulmonology and Allergy, Coimbra, Portugal
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mina Gaga
5Athens Chest Hospital “Sotiria”, 7th Respiratory Medicine Dept, Athens, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
G. John Gibson
6Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christina Gratziou
7Evgenidio Hospital, Smoking Cessation Centre, Pulmonary Dept, Athens University, Athens, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Rigau
8Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gernot Rohde
9Maastricht University Medical Center, Respiratory Medicine, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dan Smyth
10European Lung Foundation
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daiana Stolz
11University Hospital Basel, Pulmonary Care Division, Basel, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomy Tonia
12European Respiratory Society, Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jørgen Vestbo
13University of Manchester, Centre for Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, UHSM, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tobias Welte
14University of Hannover, Pulmonary Medicine, Hannover, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Guy Brusselle
1Ghent University Hospital, Dept of Respiratory Diseases, Ghent, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marc Miravitlles
15Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Pneumology Dept, Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Task forces use rigorous methodology, and the ERS will not tolerate interference with the processes by outsiders http://ow.ly/WwIe30cyhDO

The European Respiratory Society (ERS) management group have discussed the worrying recent trend for outside interference by a small number of pharmaceutical and other companies in the Society's processes for generating, publishing, disseminating and/or implementing clinical practice guidelines. Recently, some companies have targeted their unwanted attentions very aggressively on particular individuals who are chairs or members of task forces developing guidelines. This is unacceptable, and the purpose of this manuscript is to remind all concerned of our guideline procedures, the proper way of responding and expressing comments, and how the Society will regard any future attempts to manipulate outcomes.

Clinical practice guidelines are generated by the Society only after a rigorous process. The task force proposal has to be approved by the ERS Science Council and Executive Committee, who also have to approve the chairs and task force members individually. Importantly, conflict of interest statements of all task force members are reported in a fully transparent manner and are managed appropriately. The actual process of generating the guideline is carefully monitored by independent methodologists, and recommendations for clinical practice are generated in accord with the pre-specified evidence-based methodology (using the GRADE approach [1]). Our guidelines meet most of the standards for trustworthy guidelines as described by the Institute of Medicine and fulfil the requirements for inclusion in the National Guideline Clearinghouse [2, 3]. The document is then externally and internally peer reviewed, endorsed by the ERS Science Council, and finally has to be endorsed by the ERS Executive Committee. These steps involve far more extensive scrutiny than that accorded to most scientific reports. The end product, the clinical practice guideline, as clearly stated, is a manuscript containing a set of recommendations, not prescriptive commands, and every physician is at liberty to apply them or not to an individual patient, taking into account what is in the best interests of that patient. To be specific, we state “The guidelines published by the European Respiratory Society (ERS) incorporate data obtained from a comprehensive and systematic literature review of the most recent studies available at the time. Health professionals are encouraged to take the guidelines into account in their clinical practice. However, the recommendations issued by this guideline may not be appropriate for use in all situations. It is the individual responsibility of health professionals to consult other sources of relevant information, to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and the patient's caregiver where appropriate and/or necessary, and to verify rules and regulations applicable to drugs and devices at the time of prescription.” They are thus advisory, not mandatory, nor is there any intention that they should be mandatory. There can of course always be room for divergent opinions about a clinical practice guideline, as with any document, and the way these are addressed should be in the correspondence columns of the journal, under the control of the editors, with the right of reply for the original authors. What is not acceptable is any interference with these processes before publication, or threats and attacks on individual task force members during development of the guideline or after its publication. Indeed, for this reason all task force proceedings are confidential, and members sign a confidentiality agreement, and it is therefore wrong for there to be any discussions with outside parties. We consider that these are an attack on the independence and integrity of the document and on the whole Society, which we take very seriously.

The ERS management group were very clear that a clinical practice guideline belongs to the Society as a whole, and an attack on the guideline or its task force members will be considered as an attack on the whole Society, and a robust defence of individual task force members will be mounted. Any interference with our processes will be publicised and reported to the regulatory bodies, and will have repercussions for participation in future ERS Congresses. The vast majority of commercial interests have been respectful of our guidelines and their processes and will not regard this annotation as at all controversial; for those very few of whom this cannot be said, their activities will be dealt with most seriously. We are sure other scientific Societies producing guidelines will want to endorse our approach.

Disclosures

Supplementary Material

M. Gaga ERJ-00952-2017_Gaga

G. Joos ERJ-00952-2017_Joos

G. Rohde ERJ-00952-2017_Rohde

J. Vestbo ERJ-00952-2017_Vestbo

T. Welte ERJ-00952-2017_Welte

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the members of the ERS Guidelines Working Group for their contribution to facilitate the development of clinical practice guidelines within ERS and for reviewing the current document.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: D. Rigau and T. Tonia act as methodologists for the European Respiratory Society. All other disclosures can be found alongside this article at erj.ersjournals.com

  • Received May 9, 2017.
  • Accepted May 9, 2017.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2017

References

  1. ↵
    The Grade Working Group. www.gradeworkinggroup.org/
  2. ↵
    National Academies of Scienes, Engineering and Medicine. Health and Medicine Division. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, National Academy of Sciences, 2011. Available from: www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Clinical-Practice-Guidelines-We-Can-Trust.aspx
  3. ↵
    The National Guideline Clearinghouse. Submit Guidelines. www.guideline.gov/summaries/submit
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 50 Issue 1 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 50 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Taken to task: what is and is not an appropriate response to an ERS guidelines task force?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Taken to task: what is and is not an appropriate response to an ERS guidelines task force?
Guy Joos, Andrew Bush, Otto Chris Burghuber, Carlos Robalo Cordeiro, Mina Gaga, G. John Gibson, Christina Gratziou, David Rigau, Gernot Rohde, Dan Smyth, Daiana Stolz, Thomy Tonia, Jørgen Vestbo, Tobias Welte, Guy Brusselle, Marc Miravitlles
European Respiratory Journal Jul 2017, 50 (1) 1700952; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00952-2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Taken to task: what is and is not an appropriate response to an ERS guidelines task force?
Guy Joos, Andrew Bush, Otto Chris Burghuber, Carlos Robalo Cordeiro, Mina Gaga, G. John Gibson, Christina Gratziou, David Rigau, Gernot Rohde, Dan Smyth, Daiana Stolz, Thomy Tonia, Jørgen Vestbo, Tobias Welte, Guy Brusselle, Marc Miravitlles
European Respiratory Journal Jul 2017, 50 (1) 1700952; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00952-2017
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Nintedanib in chILD: a small step
  • GM-CSF targeting in COVID-19
  • EBAP: reflections on 20 years of CME in respiratory medicine
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society