Association between author conflicts of interest and industry‐sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction

Erectile dysfunction (ED) and premature ejaculation (PE) are among the most common male sexual dysfunctions. Meta-analytical studies and systematic reviews describe the frequently comorbid appearance of these two pathologies, being correlated with less favorable experiences with young females. People affected by these pathologies are more likely to have anxiety or depression and have a lower prevalence of organic comorbidities such as diabetes, high blood pressure or dyslipidemia (1,2).

Download Full-text

The application of quantitative methods for identifying and exploring the presence of bias in systematic reviews: PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction

International Journal of Impotence Research ◽

10.1038/sj.ijir.3901626 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 20 (3) ◽

pp. 264-277 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

G E Bekkering ◽

A M Abou-Setta ◽

J Kleijnen

Keyword(s):

Erectile Dysfunction ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Quantitative Methods

Download Full-text

Study sponsorship and the nutrition research agenda: analysis of cohort studies examining the association between nutrition and obesity

Public Health Nutrition ◽

10.1017/s1368980017002178 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 20 (17) ◽

pp. 3193-3199 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Alice Fabbri ◽

Nicholas Chartres ◽

Lisa A Bero

Keyword(s):

Cohort Studies ◽

Dietary Patterns ◽

Research Agenda ◽

Food Industry ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Food Groups ◽

Research Topics ◽

Funding Sources ◽

Industry Sponsorship ◽

Nutrition Research

AbstractObjectiveTo categorize the research topics covered by a sample of cohort studies exploring the association between nutrition and obesity; to describe their funding sources; and to explore the association between funding sources and research topics.DesignCross-sectional study.SubjectsCohort studies retrieved from MEDLINE and PubMed published between 2010 and 2016.ResultsOne hundred and twenty-one studies were included. Funding source and conflicts of interest were disclosed in 95·0 and 90·1 % of the studies, respectively. Food industry sponsorship was disclosed in 8·3 % of the studies. Half of the studies analysed the consumption of a single food or food groups, 18·2 % included an analysis of dietary patterns and 17·4 % focused on specific nutrients. Highly processed foods were considered in 48·8 % of the studies and 27·3 % considered dietary behaviours (e.g. eating away from home). No statistically significant differences in research topics were observed between industry- and non-industry-funded studies.ConclusionsCohort studies focused on more complex exposures (e.g. food or dietary patterns) rather than single nutrients. No significant differences in the research agenda by funding sources were observed. The analysis was limited by the low proportion of studies with disclosed food industry sponsorship.

Download Full-text

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

JMIR Dermatology ◽

10.2196/25858 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Zane Rulon ◽

Kalyn Powers ◽

J. Michael Anderson ◽

Michael Weaver ◽

Austin Johnson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Meta Analyses

Download Full-text

Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review

JMIR Perioperative Medicine ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

10.2196/preprints.19099 ◽

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.

Download Full-text