scholarly journals Do Author Conflicts of Interest and Industry Sponsorship Influence Outcomes of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Regarding Glaucoma Interventions? A Cross-sectional Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 293-299
Author(s):  
Audrey Wise ◽  
Deepika Mannem ◽  
Jon Michael Anderson ◽  
Michael Weaver ◽  
Micah Hartwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cross Sectional Analysis ◽  
Industry Sponsorship ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Sectional Analysis

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 100284
Author(s):  
Arjun K. Reddy ◽  
Kaley Lulkovich ◽  
Ryan Ottwell ◽  
Wade Arthur ◽  
Aaron Bowers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Erectile Dysfunction ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cross Sectional Analysis ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Sectional Analysis

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.

scholarly journals Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Melanoma Therapies: A Cross-Sectional Analysis (Preprint)

10.2196/33996 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross Nowlin ◽  
Alexis Wirtz ◽  
David Wenger ◽  
Ryan Ottwell ◽  
Courtney Cook ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cross Sectional Analysis ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Sectional Analysis

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

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.

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

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.

Adherence to conflicts of interest policy in Cochrane reviews where authors are also editorial board members: a cross‐sectional analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Leite Pacheco ◽  
Carolina Oliveira Cruz Latorraca ◽  
Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco ◽  
Enderson Miranda ◽  
Luis Eduardo Santos Fontes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cross Sectional Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Interest Policy ◽  
Sectional Analysis

scholarly journals Association Between Conflicts of Interest and Authors’ Positions on Harms of Varenicline: a Cross-Sectional Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Fabbri ◽  
Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard ◽  
Quinn Grundy ◽  
Lisa Bero ◽  
Adam G. Dunn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Drug Safety ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Media Attention ◽  
Cross Sectional Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Sectional Analysis

Abstract Background Few studies have investigated the relationship between industry funding/conflicts of interest and authors’ positions in opinion pieces on drug safety. Harmful effects of varenicline, a treatment for smoking cessation, have been highly contested. Objective To examine the association between pharmaceutical industry funding/authors’ financial conflicts of interest and position on varenicline in opinion articles, especially in relation to the minimization of harms; to assess whether opinion pieces on drug safety issues written by authors with conflicts of interest are more frequently cited in the news or social media. Design Cross-sectional analysis. Participants English language opinion pieces and narrative reviews about varenicline published between May 2006 and February 2019. Main Measures Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals; the Mann-Whitney two-sample statistic was used to test for differences in Altmetric scores, a measure of media attention. Key Results Of the 221 included articles, 30.3% (67) disclosed the funding source and 62.9% (139) disclosed authors’ conflicts of interest. Authors of opinion pieces on varenicline who reported financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry (as a conflict of interest or funding source) were more likely to minimise the cardiovascular and psychiatric risk of varenicline compared to those without conflicts of interest or industry funding (OR: 4.00; 95% CI: 1.32 to 12.16 for cardiovascular risk; OR: 8.51; 95% CI: 3.79 to 19.11 for psychiatric risk). These associations persisted in sensitivity analyses. No statistically significant difference in Altmetric score was found between articles with (mean 15.83, median 3) and without (mean 11.90, median 1) conflicts of interest, indicating similar media attention (p-value=0.11). Conclusions We found that authors with financial ties to drug companies were more likely to publish opinion pieces that minimised harms of varenicline. These results raise questions about journals’ editorial policies to accept reviews of treatments from authors with financial relationships with manufacturers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document