These check details committees are becoming more commonplace globally and the information presented by individual committees should provide valuable examples for other committees as well as for countries seeking to develop committees. These reports are particularly helpful in this respect

as individual manuscript authors have provided a candid insider’s view of committee functioning, with clear descriptions of NITAG structures, successes, and difficulties. Overall, examples of strong committees that provide evidence-based information to national decision makers exist from all regions of the world, from countries at various levels of socio-economic development, and from countries with both large and small populations. Some commonalities seem important to emphasize. A government-sanctioned structure is essential, although it is probably not important whether this occurs through a government decree see more or legislative action. Most of the committees described here focus on the limited

area of vaccines and immunizations although a broader scope is not necessarily problematic. The role of government in committees may raise concerns about committee independence from political influence. However, in the sample of committees presented here government influence – whether formally through committee membership, appointing committee members, serving as the secretariat or setting the meeting agenda –

was large. It is not clear how this heavy involvement of government affects the influence of science in the decision-making process. One of the most vexing issues for NITAGs is the proper role of vaccine manufacturers. Decisions about the purchase of vaccines have significant implications to both manufacturers and the taxpayer. It is therefore not surprising that all committees recognized the importance of minimizing the influence of manufacturers on the scientific process. Influence can occur through conflicts of interest for otherwise independent committee members and through direct participation of pharmaceutical representatives. With respect to the former, most committees have specific conflict of interest Olopatadine policies in place. It seems clear that this should be a fundamental component of the committee and should include written conflict of interest guidelines with specific policies in place for actions to deal with different levels of conflict of interest. With respect to direct pharmaceutical representative participation, all committees (with the exception of one committee that includes a local vaccine producer) indicated that industry did not participate in voting. However, some committees indicated that industry representation or participation was allowed at meetings.