The National Osteoporosis Foundation’s methods and processes for developing position statements
- 283 Downloads
The methods and processes described in this manuscript have been approved and adopted by the NOF Board of Trustees on November 11, 2015. This manuscript has been peer-reviewed by the NOF Research Committee and Osteoporosis International.
The National Osteoporosis Foundation frequently publishes position statements for the benefit of educating healthcare professionals and the general public on a particular issue and/or concern related to preventing osteoporosis and/or promoting strong bones throughout the lifespan. This manuscript represents the official methods and processes adopted by the NOF Board of Trustees for the purpose developing future position statements in a transparent and unbiased manner.
KeywordsPosition statement Process National Osteoporosis Foundation
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
National Osteoporosis Foundation
National Institutes of Health
Compliance with ethical standards
Sources of financial support
Conflicts of interest
TCW is employed by the National Osteoporosis Foundation. Bauer DC, Gagel RF, Greenspan SL, Lappe JM, LeBoff MS, Recker RR, Saag KG, and Singer AJ are members of the National Osteoporosis Foundation Board of Trustees.
- 1.Institute of Medicine (2009) Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 2.U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (2008) U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Procedure Manual. AHRQ Publication No. 08-05118-EF. July 2008. Available from: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/methods-and-processes
- 3.Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (2015) Standards for Commercial Support: Standards to Ensure Independence in CME Activities. Available from: http://www.accme.org/requirements/accreditation-requirements-cme-providers/standards-for-commercial-support
- 4.Coughlin SS, Soskolne CL, Goodman KW (1997) Case studies in public health ethics. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 5.American Diabetes Association (2012) Clinical practice recommendation. Diabetes Care 35(suppl 1):S1–2Google Scholar