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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiajie Yu ◽  
Guanyue Su ◽  
Allison Hirst ◽  
Zhengyue 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 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.

scholarly journals Knowledge and ability to manage medical emergencies among dental students

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-166
Author(s):  
Chitturi Prashanthi ◽  
Prashant B Patil ◽  
Vajendra Joshi ◽  
Kiran Kumar K R ◽  
Shilpa R T
Keyword(s):  
Life Support ◽  
Dental Students ◽  
Medical Emergency ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Medical Emergencies ◽  
The Difference

: An emergency can be encountered anytime and anywhere. Minimal knowledge about medical emergency and their etiology, primary protocol for management must be known to avoid potential consequences. Hence, the present study was undertaken to compare the knowledge, and ability to handle the medical emergencies among the dental students. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 100 randomly selected dental students (post-graduate students and interns) comprising of two groups of students those who had underwent training and those who did not. The data obtained was analyzed using the SPSS for windows version 22.0 released 2013. Independent chi square test was used for comparison of responses and independent student t-test was used for the comparison of mean scores. The significance level was set at p<0.001. : The average mean knowledge and ability score was 68% & 61.4% respectively among the participants. On further comparison of mean knowledge & ability scores between the participants with & without basic life support training, participants with BLS training showed better knowledge than those without training and the difference was statistically significant between the two groups (p<0.001%). The study found deficiencies in the knowledge and ability of untrained graduates to deal with medical emergencies as compared to trained.

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 667-673 ◽  
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.”

scholarly journals Characteristics of funding of clinical trials: cross-sectional survey and proposed guidance

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e015997 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maram B Hakoum ◽  
Nahla Jouni ◽  
Eliane A Abou-Jaoude ◽  
Divina Justina Hasbani ◽  
Elias A Abou-Jaoude ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Not For Profit ◽  
Funding Information ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo provide a detailed and current characterisation of funding of a representative sample clinical trials. We also aimed to develop guidance for standardised reporting of funding information.MethodsWe addressed the extent to which clinical trials published in 2015 in any of the 119 Core Clinical Journals included a statement on the funding source (eg, whether a not-for-profit organisation was supported by a private-for-profit organisation), type of funding, amount and role of funder. We used a stepwise approach to develop a guidance and an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information.ResultsOf 200 trials, 178 (89%) included a funding statement, of which 171 (96%) reported being funded. Funding statements in the 171 funded trials indicated the source in 100%, amount in 1% and roles of funders in 50%. The most frequent sources were governmental (58%) and private-for-profit (40%). Of 54 funding statements in which the source was a not-for-profit organisation, we found evidence of undisclosed support of those from private-for-profit organisation(s) in 26 (48%). The most frequently reported roles of funders in the 171 funded trials related to study design (42%) and data analysis, interpretation or management (41%). Of 139 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing pharmacological or surgical interventions, 29 (21%) reported information on the supplier of the medication or device. The proposed guidance addresses both the funding information that RCTs should report and the reporting process. Attached to the guidance is a fillable PDF document for use as an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information.ConclusionAlthough the majority of RCTs report funding, there is considerable variability in the reporting of funding source, amount and roles of funders. A standardised approach to reporting of funding information would address these limitations. Future research should explore the implications of funding by not-for-profit organisations that are supported by for-profit organisations.

scholarly journals Knowledge and ability to manage medical emergencies among dental students

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-166
Author(s):  
Chitturi Prashanthi ◽  
Prashant B Patil ◽  
Vajendra Joshi ◽  
Kiran Kumar K R ◽  
Shilpa R T
Keyword(s):  
Life Support ◽  
Dental Students ◽  
Medical Emergency ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Medical Emergencies ◽  
The Difference

: An emergency can be encountered anytime and anywhere. Minimal knowledge about medical emergency and their etiology, primary protocol for management must be known to avoid potential consequences. Hence, the present study was undertaken to compare the knowledge, and ability to handle the medical emergencies among the dental students. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 100 randomly selected dental students (post-graduate students and interns) comprising of two groups of students those who had underwent training and those who did not. The data obtained was analyzed using the SPSS for windows version 22.0 released 2013. Independent chi square test was used for comparison of responses and independent student t-test was used for the comparison of mean scores. The significance level was set at p<0.001. : The average mean knowledge and ability score was 68% & 61.4% respectively among the participants. On further comparison of mean knowledge & ability scores between the participants with & without basic life support training, participants with BLS training showed better knowledge than those without training and the difference was statistically significant between the two groups (p<0.001%). The study found deficiencies in the knowledge and ability of untrained graduates to deal with medical emergencies as compared to trained.

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

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.

Oscillation between identities and Subjective psychological health objectives among an informed audience in therapeutic patient education

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 10202
Author(s):  
Sandrine Roussel ◽  
Alain Deccache ◽  
Mariane Frenay
Keyword(s):  
Patient Education ◽  
Psychological Health ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Therapeutic Patient Education ◽  
French Speaking ◽  
Health Objectives ◽  
Self Administered Questionnaire

Introduction: The implementation of Therapeutic Patient Education (TPE) remains a challenge. An exploratory study highlighted two tendencies among practitioners of TPE, which could hamper this implementation: an oscillation between identities (as caregivers versus as educators) and an inclination towards subjective psychological health objectives. Objectives: To verify whether these tendencies can be observed among an informed audience in TPE. Next, to explore the variables associated with one or other of these tendencies. Method: A quantitative cross-sectional survey by a self-administered questionnaire was carried out among 90 French-speaking healthcare professionals. Statistical analyses (chi-square, logistic regression) were then conducted. Results: Sixty percent of respondents displayed identity oscillation, which was found to be linked to task oscillation, patient curability, scepticism towards medicine and practising in France. Fifty-six percent pursued subjective psychological health objectives, which was found to be associated with health behaviour objectives and a locus of power in the healthcare relationship distinct from those seen in the pre-existing health models (biomedical, global). This tendency seems to constitute an alternative model of TPE. Discussion & conclusion: Identity oscillation and subjective psychological health objectives can be both observed. This study stresses the need to deliberate on the form(s) of TPE that is/are desired.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document