ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension, engl.

Year of publication: 2022

Editing medical society(ies):
European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

Other medical societies involved: 6

Evaluation by Leitlinienwatch






It is stated in the introduction of conflict of interest declaration that all COIs were evaluated on the basis of the ESC-Declaration of 2020 ( However, even with this new edition after the previous version from 2016, it is not clear who is making this assessment. In addition, there is no discernible consequence of this declaration in the context of the guideline process.


Composition of the Guideline Working Group

Task force members: Out of 29, only 4 have no COIs. Reviewers: Out of 101, 27 have no COIs. Practice Guideline Committee: Out of 34, 8 have no COIs. (COI Statement:


Independence of the Coordinators/Chairs/Lead AuthorsUnabhängigkeit der Vorsitzenden/federführenden Autoren

Both leading authors have significant conflicts of interest.


Abstention from Voting

An abstention rule is - as in the previous version - not documented.


External Review of the Guideline

An external review, e.g. via a publicly accessible website, did not take place.


Bonus Points

The guideline was reviewed internally by reviewers and two methodologists. COI explanations are also available for these reviewers\methodologists. However, it is not documented how this group was recruited and how its results were implemented.

Explanations to the evaluation criteria

Overall score


Good! (11-18)

Warning! (6-10)

Needs reform! (0-5)


The ESC/ESR guidelines for pulmonary hypertension are also highly relevant for Germany, as the German Society of Cardiology refers to the ESC guidelines. Compared to the first edition of the guideline in 2016, there are no methodological improvements: the authors and reviewers of the guideline continue to report the majority of relevant conflicts of interest. In most cases, the conflicts of interest relate directly to cost-intensive drug therapies for pulmonary hypertension. As in 2016, we continue to recommend recruiting independent guideline authors for a new edition. The guideline supplement now reveals methods of study evaluation. However, there are no abstention rules, criteria for the recruitment of the guideline group or a review process (

Note: This evaluation was conducted with due care on the basis of the published guideline. Should you still discover an error, please contact us at