Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews Regarding the Management of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain with Opioids Analgesics

Pain Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Connor Polson ◽  
Parker Siex ◽  
J Michael Anderson ◽  
Michael Weaver ◽  
Will Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Opioid Analgesics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Review Author ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Disclosure Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Objective We sought to determine whether author conflict of interest (disclosed or undisclosed) or industry sponsorship influenced the favorability of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the use of opioid analgesics for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. Methods Our search included the MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases. Study sponsorship was determined using the funding statement provided in each systematic review. Author COI information was extracted from the COI disclosure statement. This information was cross-referenced with information available on the CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and previously published COI disclosures. Results Eight systematic reviews authored by 83 authors were included. Of these authors, 19 (23.0%) were found to have a COI, of which the majority (17/19; 89.5%) had at least one undisclosed COI. Despite nearly one-quarter of authors having a COI, we found no association between the presence of a COI and the favorability of results (P = 0.64) or conclusions (P = 0.07). Conclusions COI are common and frequently undisclosed among systematic review authors investigating opioid analgesics for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. Despite a high prevalence of COI, we did not find that these author-industry relationships had a significant influence on the favorability of results and conclusions; however, our findings should be considered a lower bound estimate of the true influence author COI have on outcomes of pain medicine systematic reviews secondary to the low sample size included in the present study.

scholarly journals Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review

10.2196/19099 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. e19099
Author(s):  
Ben Patel ◽  
Arron Thind
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Validated Questionnaire ◽  
System Usability Scale ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Mhealth Apps

Background Mobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate. The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation. Objective This systematic review evaluates the (1) methodology of usability analyses, (2) domains of usability being assessed, and (3) results of usability analyses. Methods The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews checklist was consulted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was adhered to. Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ). Results A total of 33 of 720 identified studies were included for data extraction. Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point. Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33). Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies. Usability of mHealth apps was above industry average, with median System Usability Scale scores ranging from 76 to 95 out of 100. Conclusions Current analyses of mHealth app usability are substandard. RCTs are rare, and validated questionnaires are infrequently consulted. Of the 3 domains of usability, only satisfaction is regularly assessed. There is significant bias throughout the literature, particularly with regards to conflicts of interest. Future studies should adhere to the MAUQ to assess usability and improve the utility of mHealth apps.

scholarly journals Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Patel ◽  
Arron Thind
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Validated Questionnaire ◽  
System Usability Scale ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Mhealth Apps

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate. The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation. OBJECTIVE This systematic review evaluates the (1) methodology of usability analyses, (2) domains of usability being assessed, and (3) results of usability analyses. METHODS The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews checklist was consulted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was adhered to. Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ). RESULTS A total of 33 of 720 identified studies were included for data extraction. Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point. Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33). Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies. Usability of mHealth apps was above industry average, with median System Usability Scale scores ranging from 76 to 95 out of 100. CONCLUSIONS Current analyses of mHealth app usability are substandard. RCTs are rare, and validated questionnaires are infrequently consulted. Of the 3 domains of usability, only satisfaction is regularly assessed. There is significant bias throughout the literature, particularly with regards to conflicts of interest. Future studies should adhere to the MAUQ to assess usability and improve the utility of mHealth apps.

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

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.

Authorial Conflicts of Interest and Sponsorship in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Psoriasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 247553032110206
Author(s):  
Micah Kee ◽  
Mary Greenough ◽  
J. Michael Anderson ◽  
Michael Weaver ◽  
Micah Hartwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Psoriasis Treatment ◽  
Research Outcomes ◽  
Cross Sectional Design ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Because industry influence – in the form of study sponsorship and authorial conflicts of interest (COI) – can bias the results and conclusions of systematic reviews, there is a need to understand their role in systematic reviews, particularly for common conditions like psoriasis. Objectives: This study identifies conflicts of interest and industry-author relationships in systematic reviews on psoriasis treatment. Methods: Consistent with our cross-sectional design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on psoriasis treatment. We then performed a subgroup analysis to determine further industry ties within the systemic reviews funded by industry. Results: Our study consisted of 27 systematic reviews and meta-analyses by 146 researchers. We found that 22 (81.5%) of the included systematic reviews contained at least 1 conflicted author. Six authors (of 47; 4.1%) disclosed all COI within the systematic review, 23 (of 47; 15.7%) partially disclosed COI but were also found to have undisclosed COI, and 18 (of 47; 12.3%) did not disclose any COI. Thirteen (of 22; 59.1%) contained narratives that favored the treatment group and 19 (of 22; 86.4%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Importantly, 3 systematic reviews were industry-sponsored. In terms of our subgroup analysis, we found several additional industry ties within the primary studies. Conclusion: Our study calls attention to conflicts of interest, industry sponsorship, and their influence on research outcomes in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Further, we provide examples of how specific industry ties can influence systematic reviews and recommendations for reporting.

A Systematic Review on Barriers to Palliative Care in Oncology

2021 ◽  
pp. 104990912098328
Author(s):  
Jyotsana Parajuli ◽  
Judith E. Hupcey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Intervention Development ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Review Of Literature ◽  
Meta Analyses

The number of people with cancer and the need for palliative care among this population is increasing in the United States. Despite this growing need, several barriers exist to the utilization of palliative care in oncology. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence on the barriers to palliative care utilization in an oncology population. A systematic review of literature was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, and Psych Info databases were used for the literature search. Articles were included if they: 1) focused on cancer, (2) examined and discussed barriers to palliative care, and c) were peer reviewed, published in English, and had an accessible full text. A total of 29 studies (8 quantitative, 18 qualitative, and 3 mixed-methods) were identified and synthesized for this review. The sample size of the included studies ranged from 10 participants to 313 participants. The barriers to palliative care were categorized into barriers related to the patient and family, b) barriers related to providers, and c) barriers related to the healthcare system or policy. The factors identified in this review provide guidance for intervention development to mitigate the existing barriers and facilitate the use palliative care in individuals with cancer.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of psychological interventions in the treatment of perinatal depression: A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariana Branquinho ◽  
María de la Fe Rodriguez-Muñoz ◽  
Berta Rodrigues Maia ◽  
Mariana Marques ◽  
Marcela Matos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Perinatal Depression ◽  
Psychological Interventions ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Students’ preparedness for disasters in schools: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e000913
Author(s):  
Hamed Seddighi ◽  
Homeira Sajjadi ◽  
Sepideh Yousefzadeh ◽  
Mónica López López ◽  
Meroe Vameghi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Disaster Preparedness ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Narrative Synthesis ◽  
Ethics Code ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionChildren are one of the most vulnerable groups in disasters. Improving students’ knowledge and skills to prepare for disasters can play a major role in children’s health. School as a place to teach children can make a significant contribution to provide the necessary skills. This study aims to identify the effects, strengths and weaknesses of interventions in schools to prepare children for disasters.Methods and analysisWe use Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to develop a protocol for this systematic review. The included studies will report on the results of interventions targeting ‘schoolchildren’ defined as individuals between 4 and under 18 years old studying in schools. Different electronic databases will be used for a comprehensive literature search, including MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE to identify the records that match the mentioned inclusion criteria published till December 2020. The main search terms are ‘disaster’, ‘preparedness’, ‘children’ and ‘school’. Four types of data will be extracted from the qualified studies including study characteristics (study design, year of publication and geographical region where the study was conducted), participant characteristics (sample size, age and gender), intervention characteristics (aim of intervention, intervention facilitators and barriers) and intervention outcomes. The quality appraisal of the selected papers will be conducted using Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias for quantitative studies and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative studies. We use a narrative synthesis for this systematic review. The narrative synthesis refers to an approach to systematic reviews which focuses mostly on applying words and texts to summarise and explain findings.Ethics and disseminationThis paper is a part of a Ph.D. thesis of Hamed Seddighi at University of Social welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences with ethics code IR.USWR.REC.1399.008 approved by the Ethics Committee of the above-mentioned university.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020146536.

scholarly journals Consequences of the COVID-19 Syndemic for Nutritional Health: A Systematic Review

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 1168
Author(s):  
Cristian Neira ◽  
Rejane Godinho ◽  
Fabio Rincón ◽  
Rodrigo Mardones ◽  
Janari Pedroso
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Physical Contact ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Eating Style ◽  
Healthy Nutrition ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Confinement at home, quarantine, and social distancing are some measures adopted worldwide to prevent the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2), which has been generating an important alteration in the routines and qualities of life of people. The impact on health is still being evaluated, and consequences in the nutritional field are not entirely clear. The study objective was to evaluate the current evidence about the impact that preventive measures of physical contact restriction causes in healthy nutrition. A systematic review was carried out according to the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” PRISMA Group and Cochrane method for rapid systematic reviews. Searching was performed in six electronic databases and evaluated articles published between 2010 and 2020, including among their participants adult subjects who had been exposed to the preventive measures of physical contact restriction. Seven studies met the selection criteria and reported an overall increase in food consumption, weight, Body Mass Index (BMI), and a change in eating style. Findings suggest that healthy nutrition is affected by preventive measures to restrict physical contact as a result of the COVID-19 syndemic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document