Identifying competing interest disclosures in systematic reviews of surgical interventions and devices: a cross-sectional survey

Abstract Background A competing interest is an important source of bias in research and disclosure is frequently employed as a strategy to manage it. Considering the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) and the varying prevalence of competing interests in different research fields, we conducted a survey to identify the range of competing interests in SRs assessing surgical interventions or devices and explored the association between the competing interest disclosures and authors’ conclusions. Methods We retrieved SRs of surgical interventions and devices published in 2017 via PubMed. Information regarding general characteristics, funding sources, and competing interest disclosures were extracted. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the studies’ characteristics and compared them between Cochrane SRs (CSRs) and non-Cochrane SRs using the Chi-square test. Results were expressed as odds ratio and their 95% confidence interval. Results One hundred fifty-five SRs published in 2017 were included in the study. More than half of the SRs (58.7%) reported their funding sources and 94.2% reported authors’ competing interest disclosures. Among 146 SRs that stated competing interest disclosures, only 35 (22.6%) SRs declared at least one author had a competing interest. More than 40 terms were used to describe competing interests. Cochrane SRs (CSRs) were more likely to provide a detailed description of competing interests compared to those in non-CSRs (48.0% versus 25.4%, P = 0.023). No association between positive conclusions and competing interest disclosures was found (P = 0.484, OR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.08, 2.16). In the subgroup analyses, SRs stating no competing interest disclosure were more likely to report positive conclusions than those stating at least one type of competing interest, but the difference is not significantly different (P = 0.406, OR = 1.38, 95%CI: 0.64, 2.98). Conclusion In surgical SRs, there is a high percentage of competing interest disclosures but without detailed information. The identification and statement of competing interests with a detailed description, particularly the non-financial ones, needs improvement. Some efficient and effective methods/tools for identifying, quantifying, and minimizing potential competing interests in systematic reviews remains valuable.

Download Full-text

Identifying competing interest disclosures in systematic reviews of surgical interventions and devices: a cross-sectional survey

10.21203/rs.3.rs-33056/v4 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jiajie Yu ◽

Guanyue Su ◽

Allison Hirst ◽

Zengyue Yang ◽

You Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Chi Square ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Surgical Interventions ◽

Competing Interests ◽

Funding Sources ◽

Research Fields ◽

Competing Interest

Abstract Background: A competing interest is an important source of bias in research and disclosure is frequently employed as a strategy to manage it. Considering the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) and the varying prevalence of competing interests in different research fields, we conducted a survey to identify the range of competing interests in SRs assessing surgical interventions or devices and explored the association between the competing interest disclosures and authors’ conclusions.Methods: We retrieved SRs of surgical interventions and devices published in 2017 via PubMed. Information regarding general characteristics, funding sources, and competing interest disclosures were extracted. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the studies’ characteristics and compared them between Cochrane SRs (CSRs)and non-Cochrane SRs using the Chi-square test. Results were expressed as odds ratio and their 95% confidence interval.Results: 155 SRs published in 2017 were included in the study. More than half of the SRs (58.7%) reported their funding sources and 94.2% reported authors’ competing interest disclosures. Among 146 SRs that stated competing interest disclosures, only 35 (22.6%) SRs declared at least one author had a competing interest. More than 40 terms were used to describe competing interests. Cochrane SRs (CSRs) were more likely to provide a detailed description of competing interests compared to those in non-CSRs (48.0% versus 25.4%, P=0.023). No association between positive conclusions and competing interest disclosures was found (P=0.484, OR=0.43, 95%CI: 0.08, 2.16). In the subgroup analyses, SRs stating no competing interest disclosure were more likely to report positive conclusions than those stating at least one type of competing interest, but the difference is not significantly different (P=0.406, OR=1.38, 95%CI: 0.64, 2.98)Conclusion: In surgical SRs, there is a high percentage of competing interest disclosures but without detailed information. The identification and statement of competing interests with a detailed description, particularly the non-financial ones, needs improvement. Some efficient and effective methods/tools for identifying, quantifying, and minimizing potential competing interests in systematic reviews remains valuable.

Download Full-text

Identifying competing interest disclosure in systematic reviews of surgical interventions and devices: a cross-sectional survey

10.21203/rs.3.rs-33056/v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jiajie Yu ◽

Guanyue Su ◽

Allison Hirst ◽

Zengyue Yang ◽

You Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Funding Source ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Chi Square ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Surgical Interventions ◽

Competing Interests ◽

Research Fields ◽

Competing Interest

Abstract Background: Competing interest is an important source of bias in research and disclosure is frequently employed as a strategy to manage it. Considering the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) and the varying prevalence of competing interest in different research fields, we conducted a survey to identify the range of competing interest in SRs assessing surgical intervention or devices and explored the association between competing interest disclosure and authors’ conclusion. Methods: We retrieved SRs of surgical interventions and devices published in 2017 via PubMed. Information regarding general characteristics, funding source, and competing interest disclosure were extracted. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the studies’ characteristics and compared them between Cochrane SRs (CSRs)and non-Cochrane SRs using the Chi-square test. Results were expressed as odds ratio and their 95% confidence interval. Results: 155 SRs published in 2017 were included in the study. More than half of the SRs (58.7%) reported their funding source and 94.2% reported authors’ competing interest disclosure. Among 146 SRs that stated competing interest disclosures, only 35 (22.6%) SRs declared at least one author had a competing interest. More than 40 terms were used to describe competing interests. Cochrane SRs (CSRs) were more likely to provide a detailed description of competing interest compared to those in non-CSRs (48.0% versus 25.4%, P=0,023). No association between a positive conclusion and competing interest disclosure was found (P=0.484, OR=0.43, 95%CI: 0.08, 2.16). In the subgroup analyses, SRs stating no competing interest disclosure were more likely to report positive conclusion than those stating at least one type of competing interest, but the difference is not significantly different (P=0.406, OR=1.38, 95%CI: 0.64, 2.98) Conclusion: In surgical SRs, there is a high percentage of competing interest disclosure but without detailed information. The identification and statement of competing interests with a detailed description, particularly the non-financial ones, needs improvement. Some efficient and effective methods/tools for identifying, quantifying, and minimizing potential competing interest in systematic reviews remains valuable.

Download Full-text

Identifying conflict of interest disclosure in systematic reviews of surgical interventions and devices: a cross-sectional survey

10.21203/rs.3.rs-33056/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jiajie Yu ◽

Guanyue Su ◽

Allison Hirst ◽

Zengyue Yang ◽

You Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Conflict Of Interest ◽

High Rate ◽

Funding Source ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Chi Square ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Surgical Interventions ◽

Research Fields ◽

The Difference

Abstract Background Conflict of interest (COI) is an important source of bias in research and disclosure is the most frequent strategy to manage COI. Considering the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) and the prevalence of COI is varying among different research fields and the, we conducted a survey to identify the range of conflict of interest in SRs assessing surgical intervention and devices, and explored the association between COI disclosure and conclusion. Methods We retrieved SRs of surgical interventions and devices published in 2017 via PubMed. Information regarding general characteristics, funding source and COI disclosure were extracted. We conducted a descriptive analyses of study characteristics of included systematic reviews. The difference between groups in the authors’ conclusions were compared using the Chi-square test. Results were expressed as odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval. Results 155 SRs were finally identified in 2017, more than half of SRs (58.7%) reported their funding source and 94.2% reported authors’ COI disclosure. Among 146 SRs that stated COI disclosures, only 35 (22.6%) SRs declared at least one author had a COI. More than 40 terms were used to describe COI. Cochrane SRs were more likely to provide a detail description of COI comparing with those in non-CSR (48.0% versus 25.4%, P = 0,023). No association between positive conclusion and COI disclosure was found (P = 0.484, OR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.08, 2.16). In the subgroup analyses, SRs stating no COI disclosure were more likely to report positive conclusion than those stating at least one type of COI, but the difference is not significantly different (P = 0.406, OR = 1.38, 95%CI: 0.64, 2.98) Conclusion A high rate of COI disclosure without any detailed information. Although little impact of COI disclosure on author’ conclusions in SRs was found for limited sample, clear description of all potential COI is the best way to enhance the credibility of published scholarship and unbiased evidence-informed decision.

Download Full-text

Identifying conflict of interest disclosure in systematic reviews of surgical interventions and devices: a cross-sectional survey

10.21203/rs.3.rs-33056/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jiajie Yu ◽

Guanyue Su ◽

Allison Hirst ◽

Zengyue Yang ◽

You Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Conflict Of Interest ◽

High Rate ◽

Funding Source ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Chi Square ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Surgical Interventions ◽

Research Fields ◽

The Difference

Abstract Background: Conflict of interest (COI) is an important source of bias in research and disclosure is the most frequent strategy to manage COI. Considering the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) and the prevalence of COI is varying among different research fields, we conducted a survey to identify the range of conflict of interest in SRs assessing surgical intervention and devices, and explored the association between COI disclosure and conclusion.Methods: We retrieved SRs of surgical interventions and devices published in 2017 via PubMed. Information regarding general characteristics, funding source and COI disclosure were extracted. We conducted descriptive analyses of study characteristics of included systematic reviews. The difference between groups in the authors’ conclusions were compared using the Chi-square test. Results were expressed as odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval.Results: 155 SRs were finally identified in 2017, more than half of SRs (58.7%) reported their funding source and 94.2% reported authors’ COI disclosure. Among 146 SRs that stated COI disclosures, only 35 (22.6%) SRs declared at least one author had a COI. More than 40 terms were used to describe COI. Cochrane SRs were more likely to provide a detail description of COI comparing with those in non-CSR (48.0% versus 25.4%, P=0,023). No association between a positive conclusion and COI disclosure was found (P=0.484, OR=0.43, 95%CI: 0.08, 2.16). In the subgroup analyses, SRs stating no COI disclosure were more likely to report positive conclusion than those stating at least one type of COI, but the difference is not significantly different (P=0.406, OR=1.38, 95%CI: 0.64, 2.98)Conclusion: A high rate of COI disclosure without any detailed information. The identification and statement of COI, particularly nonfinancial interests, are still needed to be improved. Some efficient and effective methods/tools for identifying, quantifying, and minimizing potential COI in systematic reviews are necessary.

Download Full-text

Assessing the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of COVID-19 among Quarantine Hotel Workers in China

Healthcare ◽

10.3390/healthcare9060772 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (6) ◽

pp. 772

Author(s):

Yi-Man Teng ◽

Kun-Shan Wu ◽

Wen-Cheng Wang ◽

Dan Xu

Keyword(s):

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Binary Logistic Regression ◽

Sociodemographic Factors ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Chi Square ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Attitudes And Practices ◽

Positive Attitudes ◽

Hotel Workers ◽

Knowledge Attitudes And Practices

During the pandemic, quarantine hotel workers face a higher risk of infection while they host quarantine guests from overseas. This study’s aim is to gain an understanding of the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of quarantine hotel workers in China. A total of 170 participants took part in a cross-sectional survey to assess the KAP of quarantine hotel workers in China, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The chi-square test, independent t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), descriptive analysis, and binary logistic regression were used to examine the sociodemographic factors associated with KAP levels during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results show that 62.41% have good knowledge, 94.7% have a positive attitude towards COVID-19, but only 78.2% have good practices. Most quarantine hotel workers (95.3%) are confident that COVID-19 will be successfully controlled and that China is handling the COVID-19 crisis well (98.8%). Most quarantine hotel workers are also taking personal precautions, such as avoiding crowds (80.6%) and wearing facemasks (97.6%). The results evidence that quarantine hotel workers in China have acquired the necessary knowledge, positive attitudes and proactive practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this study can provide a reference for quarantine hotel workers and their targeted education and intervention.

Download Full-text

Knowledge, Attitude, and Perception of COVID-19 Pandemic in Enugu, Southeast Nigeria- The Initial Experience

Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research ◽

10.9734/jammr/2021/v33i2031101 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 27-37

Author(s):

E. K. Mgbe ◽

C. G. Mgbe ◽

S. N. Ezeofor ◽

J. F. Etiki

Keyword(s):

Social Media ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

World Health ◽

Validity And Reliability ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Chi Square ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

The World ◽

Enugu State ◽

Health Organization

Background: The world is experiencing a global corona virus (COVID-19) pandemic. As of 9th June 2020, over 7 million confirmed cases of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and more than 400,000 deaths had been reported in more than 30 countries of the world according to World Health Organization. Aim: We aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and vulnerability perception of Enugu state residents during the coronavirus outbreak in order to facilitate better health care outcomes. Methodology: A prospective Web-based cross-sectional survey was designed for this study which was conducted in March 2020 among Enugu state residents. The obtained data were coded, validated, and analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SPSS software, version 24. Descriptive analysis was applied to calculate the frequencies and proportions and Chi-Square Test was also used. A preliminary phase was conducted to assess the validity and reliability of the questionnaire before its use. Results: The study showed that significant number (99.6%) of the respondents had heard about Covid-19 and the most stated source of knowledge was social media (57.6%), followed by Newspaper and television shows (50.2%) while the least was from General Practitioner (GP) (8.9%). There was over 75% agreement with, and practice, of all known covid precautionary measures and less than 35% responses for wrong claims and practices about covid -19. Conclusion: The overall knowledge, attitude, and perception are high in Enugu state population although few still has background combined superstitious believes. Social media and internet are the highest used facility for acquisition of knowledge and information in Enugu, Nigeria.

Download Full-text

Critically Low Confidence in the Results Produced by Spine Surgery Systematic Reviews: An AMSTAR-2 Evaluation From 4 Spine Journals

Global Spine Journal ◽

10.1177/2192568220917926 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (5) ◽

pp. 667-673 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Joseph R. Dettori ◽

Andrea C. Skelly ◽

Erika D. Brodt

Keyword(s):

Spine Surgery ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

A Priori ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Surgical Interventions ◽

Surgery Research

Study Design: A systematic cross-sectional survey of systematic reviews (SRs). Objective: To evaluate the methodological quality of spine surgery SRs published in 2018 using the updated AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal instrument. Methods: We identified the PubMed indexed journals devoted to spine surgery research in 2018. All SRs of spine surgical interventions from those journals were critically appraised for quality independently by 2 reviewers using the AMSTAR 2 instrument. We calculated the percentage of SRs achieving a positive response for each AMSTAR 2 domain item and assessed the levels of confidence in the results of each SR. Results: We identified 28 SRs from 4 journals that met our criteria for inclusion. Only 49.5% of the AMSTAR 2 domain items satisfied the AMSTAR 2 criteria. Critical domain items were satisfied less often (39.1%) compared with noncritical domain items (57.3%). Domain items most poorly reported include accounting for individual study risk of bias when interpreting results (14%), list and justification of excluded articles (18%), and an a priori establishment of methods prior to the review or registered protocol (18%). The overall confidence in the results was rated “low” in 2 SRs and “critically low” in 26. Conclusions: The credibility of a SR and its value to clinicians and policy makers are dependent on its methodological quality. This appraisal found significant methodological limitations in several critical domains, such that the confidence in the findings of these reviews is “critically low.”

Download Full-text

The Association of Falls with Instability: An Analysis of Perceptions and Expectations toward the Use of Fall Detection Devices Among Older Adults in Malaysia

Frontiers in Public Health ◽

10.3389/fpubh.2021.612538 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 ◽

Author(s):

Kawthar Abdul Rahman ◽

Siti Anom Ahmad ◽

Azura Che Soh ◽

Asmidawati Ashari ◽

Chikamune Wada ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Older Adults ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Fall Detection ◽

Community Dwelling ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Chi Square ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Quantitative Descriptive Analysis ◽

Perceptions And Expectations ◽

Community Dwelling Older Adults

Background: Falls are a significant incident among older adults affecting one in every three individuals aged 65 and over. Fall risk increases with age and other factors, namely instability. Recent studies on the use of fall detection devices in the Malaysian community are scarce, despite the necessity to use them. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the association between the prevalence of falls with instability. This study also presents a survey that explores older adults' perceptions and expectations toward fall detection devices.Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted involving 336 community-dwelling older adults aged 50 years and older; based on randomly selected participants. Data were analyzed using quantitative descriptive analysis. Chi-square test was conducted to investigate the associations between self-reported falls with instability, demographic and walking characteristics. Additionally, older adults' perceptions and expectations concerning the use of fall detection devices in their daily lives were explored.Results: The prevalence of falls was 28.9%, where one-quarter of older adults fell at least once in the past 6 months. Participants aged 70 years and older have a higher fall percentage than other groups. The prevalence of falls was significantly associated with instability, age, and walking characteristics. Around 70% of the participants reported having instability issues, of which over half of them fell at least once within 6 months. Almost 65% of the participants have a definite interest in using a fall detection device. Survey results revealed that the most expected features for a fall detection device include: user-friendly, followed by affordably priced, and accurate.Conclusions: The prevalence of falls in community-dwelling older adults is significantly associated with instability. Positive perceptions and informative expectations will be used to develop an enhanced fall detection incorporating balance monitoring system. Our findings demonstrate the need to extend the fall detection device features aiming for fall prevention intervention.

Download Full-text

Perception of Malaria Transmission and Preventive Strategies among Adolescents in Rivers State, South-South Nigeria

Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research ◽

10.9734/jammr/2019/v31i130278 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 1-7

Author(s):

Nneka Gabriel-Job ◽

Joyce Okagua

Keyword(s):

Malaria Transmission ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Sub Saharan Africa ◽

Public Health Issue ◽

P Value ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Chi Square ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Sub Saharan ◽

Rivers State

Introduction: Malaria is a cause of mortality in African. Though preventable it has remained a public health issue in sub-Saharan Africa where more than 90% of all malaria cases occur. The study is intended to determine the perception of malaria transmission and prevention among adolescent in Rivers State. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among adolescents in secondary schools in Port Harcourt. A Self-administered questionnaire was employed for data collection. Descriptive analysis was carried out. Comparing two mean was by t-test while test for significance was by chi square. In all a p value of ≤ 0.05 was regarded as significant. Results: Results of the 969 subjects 445 (45.9%) were males while 524 (54.1%) were females. The mean age was 14.3 ± 1.2 years. All the respondent (100%) had heard of malaria, 957 (98.8%) were aware that mosquito was the vector, 923(95.3%) reported that the mode of transmission was through a bite by mosquito. Misconception regarding transmission of malaria was identified among 46(4.7%) participants. 760 (78.4%) of them possessed Insecticidal Treated Nets (ITN). Factors that enhanced ITN use among the respondents includes being a Junior student (p<0.001, OR=12.48, CI= 8.07-19.31), higher socioeconomic class (p<0.001, OR= 2.39, CI=1.71-3.33) while age and family size were not significantly associated. Conclusion: Adolescents in Rivers State have considerable information on malaria transmission and prevention however utilization of ITN is poor. Health education is needed to enhance the use of ITN among adolescents in Rivers State.

Download Full-text

Methodological quality for systematic reviews of adverse events with surgical interventions: a cross-sectional survey

BMC Medical Research Methodology ◽

10.1186/s12874-021-01423-6 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Xiaoqin Zhou ◽

Linji Li ◽

Lifeng Lin ◽

Ke Ju ◽

Joey S. W. Kwong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Median Number ◽

Absolute Difference ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Surgical Interventions ◽

Over Time

Abstract Background An increasing number of systematic reviews assessed the safety of surgical interventions over time. How well these systematic reviews were designed and conducted determines the reliability of evidence. In this study, we aimed to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews on the safety of surgical interventions. Methods We searched PubMed for systematic reviews of surgical interventions with safety as the exclusive outcome from 1st-Jan, 2015 to 1st-Jan, 2020. The methodological quality of eligible systematic reviews was evaluated according to the AMSTAR 2.0 instrument. The primary outcomes were the number of methodological weaknesses and the global methodological quality. The proportion of each methodological weakness among eligible systematic reviews was compared by three pre-defined stratification variables. The absolute difference of the proportion (PD) was used as the effect estimator, with the two-tailed z-test for the significance. Results We identified 127 systematic reviews from 18,636 records. None (n = 0, 0.00%) of them could be rated as “high” in terms of the global methodological quality; in contrast, they were either rated as “low” (n = 18, 14.17%) or as “critically low” (n = 109, 85.83%). The median number of methodological weaknesses of these systematic reviews was 8 (interquartile range, IQR: 6 to 9), in which 4 (IQR: 2 to 4) were critical weaknesses. Systematic reviews that used any reporting guideline (e.g., domain 13, PD = -0.22, 95% CI: − 0.39, − 0.06; p = 0.01) and developed a protocol in advance (e.g., domain 6, PD = -0.20, 95% CI: − 0.39, − 0.01; p = 0.04) were less likely to have methodological weakness in some domains but not for the rest (e.g., domain 8, PD = 0.04, 95% CI: − 0.14, 0.21; p = 0.68; with protocol vs. without). Conclusions The methodological quality of current systematic reviews of adverse events with surgical interventions was poor. Further efforts, for example, encouraging researchers to develop a protocol in advance, are needed to enhance the methodological quality of these systematic reviews.

Download Full-text