Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis

Background. Studies with positive findings are more likely to be published compared to those with negative findings. Therefore the latter studies are often disregarded in systematic reviews. This causes an overestimation of a treatment effect size which leads to a misinterpretation of the evidence. Searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews is a useful source to retrieve unpublished clinical trials leading to the reduction of publication bias. Previous studies in the literature reported inconsistent searching of clinical trial registries in systematic reviews published in several medical fields. Searching clinical trial registries in physical therapy is still unknown. The aim of this cross-sectional analysis is to evaluate the extent of clinical trial registry searching in physical therapy interventional systematic reviews. Methods. Systematic reviews published between January 2017 and January 2018 were retrieved from five reputable physical therapy journals. Interventional systematic reviews that were coherent with the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Results. The search yielded 40 systematic reviews. Among these 19 were interventional systematic reviews as well as being consistent with the inclusion criteria and thus were considered for the analysis. After reviewing their search methodology, only two reviews (10.5%) reported searching at least one clinical trial registry. Discussion. The results of this study suggest poor searching of clinical trial registries in physical therapy systematic reviews. Due to the limitations of this study, further research analyzing large samples of interventional physical therapy systematic reviews is required.

Download Full-text

Flaws in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions were common: a cross-sectional analysis

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology ◽

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.022 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 95 ◽

pp. 7-18 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

Matthew J. Page ◽

Douglas G. Altman ◽

Joanne E. McKenzie ◽

Larissa Shamseer ◽

Nadera Ahmadzai ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Statistical Analyses ◽

Therapeutic Interventions ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Cross Sectional Analysis ◽

Sectional Analysis

Download Full-text

Searching clinical trial registries in interventional physical therapy systematic reviews: A Pilot Cross-sectional Analysis

10.7287/peerj.preprints.26981v1 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Alaa Abou Khzam

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Physical Therapy ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Trial Registry ◽

Inclusion Criteria ◽

Clinical Trial Registry ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Cross Sectional Analysis ◽

Clinical Trial Registries ◽

Sectional Analysis

Background. Studies with positive findings are more likely to be published compared to those with negative findings. Therefore the latter studies are often disregarded in systematic reviews. This causes an overestimation of a treatment effect size which leads to a misinterpretation of the evidence. Searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews is a useful source to retrieve unpublished clinical trials leading to the reduction of publication bias. Previous studies in the literature reported inconsistent searching of clinical trial registries in systematic reviews published in several medical fields. Searching clinical trial registries in physical therapy is still unknown. The aim of this cross-sectional analysis is to evaluate the extent of clinical trial registry searching in physical therapy interventional systematic reviews. Methods. Systematic reviews published between January 2017 and January 2018 were retrieved from five reputable physical therapy journals. Interventional systematic reviews that were coherent with the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Results. The search yielded 40 systematic reviews. Among these 19 were interventional systematic reviews as well as being consistent with the inclusion criteria and thus were considered for the analysis. After reviewing their search methodology, only two reviews (10.5%) reported searching at least one clinical trial registry. Discussion. The results of this study suggest poor searching of clinical trial registries in physical therapy systematic reviews. Due to the limitations of this study, further research analyzing large samples of interventional physical therapy systematic reviews is required.

Download Full-text

Conflicts of interest among authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating interventions for melanoma: Cross-sectional Analysis (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.25858 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Zane Rulon ◽

Kalyn Powers ◽

J. Michael Anderson ◽

Michael Weaver ◽

Austin Johnson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Treatment Group ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

The United States ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Exact Test ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Sectional Analysis ◽

States Patent

BACKGROUND Background: Previous studies have highlighted the potential influence industry relationships may have on the outcomes of medical research. OBJECTIVE Objectives: We aimed to determine the prevalence of author COI in systematic reviews focusing on melanoma interventions, as well as determine whether the presence of these COI were associated with an increased likelihood of reporting favorable results and conclusions. METHODS Methods: This cross-sectional study included systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses focusing on interventions for melanoma. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for eligible systematic reviews published between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2020. COI disclosures were cross-referenced with information from the CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and previously published COI disclosure statements. Results were quantified using descriptive statistics and relationships were evaluated by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS Results: Of the 23 systematic reviews included in our sample, 12 (12/23; 52%) had at least one author with a COI. Of these reviews, seven (58%) reported narrative results favoring the treatment group and nine (75%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 11 systematic reviews without a conflicted author, four (36%) reported results favoring the treatment group and five (45%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. We found no significant association between the presence of author COI and the favorability of results (p= 0.53) or conclusions (p= 0.15). CONCLUSIONS Conclusions: Author COI did not appear to influence the outcomes of systematic reviews regarding melanoma interventions. Clinicians and other readers of dermatology literature should be cognizant of the influence that industry may have on the nature of reported outcomes, including those from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Download Full-text