Concerns About Consensus Guidelines for QTc Interval Screening in Methadone Treatment

Gavin Bart

doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-3-200908040-00016

Concerns About Consensus Guidelines for QTc Interval Screening in Methadone Treatment Free

Gavin Bart, MD

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information

TO THE EDITOR:

The clinical guidelines by Krantz and colleagues (1) raise important methodological concerns. Although Krantz and colleagues use a method for predicting adverse drug reactions, they neglect to use data extraction and quality assessment tools. In fact, they state that they “did not prespecify critical appraisal criteria.” This is contrary to Annals' “Information for Authors” (2), which requires guidelines to include a grading system, such as those described by the Conference on Guideline Standardization; the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group; or the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

On review of the 212 articles listed in Annals' online “Clinical Guidelines/Position Papers” collection (accessed 9 February 2009), I found 94 unique clinical guidelines. Excluding 2 updates on adult vaccination schedules, 54 of the remaining 92 guidelines used a grading system, whereas 28 guidelines systematically rated the quality of evidence supporting guideline recommendations. Eight of the 10 guidelines providing neither grade nor quality assessment were published before 1998, when such quality assessments became routine. Therefore, the guidelines by Krantz and colleagues are 1 of 2 guidelines published by Annals since 1998 that do not explicitly evaluate or grade the quality of evidence used in guideline recommendations. Using USPSTF criteria (3), the literature cited by Krantz and colleagues would result in a grade of I, indicating that the evidence is insufficient to determine the relationship between the benefits and harms of QTc screening. Had the authors expounded on this and incorporated recent methods (published in Annals) (4) for guidelines based on insufficient evidence, the reader would be better equipped to make rational clinical decisions.

Of further interest, although Krantz and colleagues summarize their recommendations in Table 2 under the title “Consensus Recommendations,” 2 of the panelists have declined acknowledgment in the publication, which raises the question: Was there consensus?

In addition, the online version (but not the print version) of this article states that 3 of the panel members have financial conflicts of interest related to support by Reckitt Benckiser (1 was formerly President and CEO), the producer of methadone's main competitor (buprenorphine) in the treatment of opiate dependence. These disclosures were not made in the original, withdrawn version of the guidelines.

These issues call into question the quality of Krantz and colleagues' recommendations, the independence of the authors, and the judgment of Annals in publishing clinical guidelines that fall well outside the normative standards.

Gavin Bart, MD

Hennepin County Medical Center

Minneapolis, MN 55415

References

Krantz
MJ
Martin
J
Stimmel
B
Mehta
D
Haigney
MC
QTc interval screening in methadone treatment.
Ann Intern Med
2009
150
387
95
PubMed
CrossRef
Information for Authors. Ann Intern Med. Accessed athttp://www.annals.org/shared/author_info.html#guidelines-and-position-paperson 10 June 2009.
Barton
MB
Miller
T
Wolff
T
Petitti
D
LeFevre
M
Sawaya
G
et al.
U. S. Preventive Services Task Force
How to read the new recommendation statement: methods update from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Ann Intern Med
2007
147
123
7
PubMed
CrossRef
Petitti
DB
Teutsch
SM
Barton
MB
Sawaya
GF
Ockene
JK
DeWitt
T
U. S. Preventive Services Task Force
Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: insufficient evidence.
Ann Intern Med
2009
150
199
205
PubMed
CrossRef

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Subscribe/Learn More

Letters |4 August 2009

Concerns About Consensus Guidelines for QTc Interval Screening in Methadone Treatment Free

References

Clinical Slide Sets

This feature is available only to Registered Users

0 Comments

See Also

Content

Information For

Services

Awards

Other Resources

Follow Annals On

Letters |4 August 2009

Concerns About Consensus Guidelines for QTc Interval Screening in Methadone Treatment Free

References

Clinical Slide Sets

This feature is available only to Registered Users

0 Comments

See Also

Content

Information For

Services

Awards

Other Resources

Follow Annals On

You need a subscription to this content to use this feature.