Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study

ObjectiveTo (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author–industry financial ties and author–industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010.DesignReview of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses.Data sourcesMEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting articlesWe selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥2 RCTs and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs.Results90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% CI 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author–industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting trial funding was ≤0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author–industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI 2% to 19%).ConclusionsReporting of trial funding sources, trial author–industry financial ties and trial author–industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses.

Download Full-text

A cross-sectional study of all clinicians’ conflict of interest disclosures to NHS hospital employers in England 2015-2016

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019952 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (3) ◽

pp. e019952 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Harriet Ruth Feldman ◽

Nicholas J DeVito ◽

Jonathan Mendel ◽

David E Carroll ◽

Ben Goldacre

Keyword(s):

Conflict Of Interest ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Current System ◽

Tertiary Care ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Freedom Of Information ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

The Gift ◽

The Uk

ObjectiveWe set out to document how NHS trusts in the UK record and share disclosures of conflict of interest by their employees.DesignCross-sectional study of responses to a Freedom of Information Act request for Gifts and Hospitality Registers.SettingNHS Trusts (secondary/tertiary care organisations) in England.Participants236 Trusts were contacted, of which 217 responded.Main outcome measuresWe assessed all disclosures for completeness and openness, scoring them for achieving each of five measures of transparency.Results185 Trusts (78%) provided a register. 71 Trusts did not respond within the 28 day time limit required by the FoIA. Most COI registers were incomplete by design, and did not contain the information necessary to assess conflicts of interest. 126/185 (68%) did not record the names of recipients. 47/185 (25%) did not record the cash value of the gift or hospitality. Only 31/185 registers (16%) contained the names of recipients, the names of donors, and the cash amounts received. 18/185 (10%) contained none of: recipient name, donor name, and cash amount. Only 15 Trusts had their disclosure register publicly available online (6%). We generated a transparency index assessing whether each Trust met the following criteria: responded on time; provided a register; had a register with fields identifying donor, recipient, and cash amount; provided a register in a format that allowed further analysis; and had their register publicly available online. Mean attainment was 1.9/5; no NHS trust met all five criteria.ConclusionOverall, recording of employees’ conflicts of interest by NHS trusts is poor. None of the NHS Trusts in England met all transparency criteria. 19 did not respond to our FoIA requests, 51 did not provide a Gifts and Hospitality Register and only 31 of the registers provided contained enough information to assess employees’ conflicts of interest. Despite obligations on healthcare professionals to disclose conflicts of interest, and on organisations to record these, the current system for logging and tracking such disclosures is not functioning adequately. We propose a simple national template for reporting conflicts of interest, modelled on the US ‘Sunshine Act’.

Download Full-text

Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology ◽

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.008 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 62 (4) ◽

pp. 380-386.e1 ◽

Cited By ~ 50

Author(s):

Andrea C. Tricco ◽

Jennifer Tetzlaff ◽

Ba' Pham ◽

Jamie Brehaut ◽

David Moher

Keyword(s):

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Cochrane Reviews

Download Full-text

Pattern of Chemotherapy-Related Adverse Effects Among Adult Patients With Cancer Treated at Gondar University Referral Hospital, Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Journal of Global Oncology ◽

10.1200/jgo.18.70000 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 4 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 15s-15s

Author(s):

Sewunet Admasu Belachew ◽

Daniel Asfaw Erku ◽

Abebe Basazn Mekuria ◽

Begashaw Melaku Gebresillassie

Keyword(s):

Health Care Professionals ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Tertiary Care ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Chemotherapeutic Agents ◽

Referral Hospital ◽

Categorical Variables ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Patients With Cancer

Abstract 32 Purpose Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a global problem and constitute a major clinical problem in terms of human suffering. The high toxicity and narrow therapeutic index of chemotherapeutic agents makes oncology pharmacovigilance essential. The objective of the current study was to assess the pattern of ADRs that occur in patients with cancer who were treated with chemotherapy in a tertiary care teaching hospital in Ethiopia. Methods A cross-sectional study over a 2-year period from September 2013 to August 2015 was conducted in patients with cancer who underwent chemotherapy at Gondar University Referral Hospital Oncology Center. Data were collected directly from patients and their medical case files. Reported ADRs were assessed for causality using the WHO causality assessment scale and Naranjo’s algorithm. Severities of the reported reactions were also assessed using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0). Pearson’s χ2 test was used to examine the association between two categorical variables. Results A total of 815 ADRs were identified from 203 patients who were included in the study. The most commonly occurring ADRs were nausea and vomiting (18.9%), infections (16.7%), neutropenia (14.7%), fever and/or chills (11.3%), and anemia (9.3%). Platinum compounds (31.4%) were the most common group of drugs that caused ADRs. Of reported ADRs, 65.8% were grades 3 to 4 (severe level), 29.9% were grades 1 to 2 (mild level), and 4.3% were grade 5 (toxic level). Significant association was found between age, number of chemotherapeutic agents, and dose of chemotherapy with the occurrence of grades 3 to 5 toxicity. Conclusion The high incidence of chemotherapy-related ADRs among patients with cancer is of concern. Establishing an effective ADR monitoring and reporting system—oncopharmacovigilance—and creating awareness among health care professionals of the importance of ADR reporting may help prevent the problem. AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST No COIs from the authors.

Download Full-text

Conflicts of interest disclosure policies among Chinese medical journals: A cross-sectional study

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0219564 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 14 (7) ◽

pp. e0219564

Author(s):

Jiayi Zhu ◽

Ji Sun

Keyword(s):

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Medical Journals

Download Full-text

A Study of Recognizing Conflicts of Interest in Pending Financial Planning Engagements

Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning ◽

10.1891/1052-3073.26.2.148 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 26 (2) ◽

pp. 148-159 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Frank C. Bearden

Keyword(s):

Role Conflict ◽

Financial Planning ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Influence Factors ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Professional Judgment ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Recognition Time ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Financial Planners

Conflicts of interest (COI) are an ethical issue for financial planners because they impair professional judgment if not addressed. This article describes a quantitative, cross-sectional study of COI recognition in pending engagements and measuring the influence of time in practice and financial planning credentials upon recognition. Participants were 51 graduates of the M.S. degree from the College for Financial Planning. Participants were asked three questions regarding each of the six hypothetical situations of pending financial planning engagements. Each question provided an indicator of COI recognition. Time in practice and financial planning credentials were used as influence factors upon COI recognition. Results indicated high COI recognition involving role conflict and low recognition with family members as clients. Time in practice was related to increased COI recognition involving role conflict. Financial planning credentials were related to increased COI recognition with a business associate as client.

Download Full-text