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.

Authorial Conflicts of Interest and Sponsorship in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Psoriasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 247553032110206
Author(s):  
Micah Kee ◽  
Mary Greenough ◽  
J. Michael Anderson ◽  
Michael Weaver ◽  
Micah Hartwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Psoriasis Treatment ◽  
Research Outcomes ◽  
Cross Sectional Design ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Because industry influence – in the form of study sponsorship and authorial conflicts of interest (COI) – can bias the results and conclusions of systematic reviews, there is a need to understand their role in systematic reviews, particularly for common conditions like psoriasis. Objectives: This study identifies conflicts of interest and industry-author relationships in systematic reviews on psoriasis treatment. Methods: Consistent with our cross-sectional design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on psoriasis treatment. We then performed a subgroup analysis to determine further industry ties within the systemic reviews funded by industry. Results: Our study consisted of 27 systematic reviews and meta-analyses by 146 researchers. We found that 22 (81.5%) of the included systematic reviews contained at least 1 conflicted author. Six authors (of 47; 4.1%) disclosed all COI within the systematic review, 23 (of 47; 15.7%) partially disclosed COI but were also found to have undisclosed COI, and 18 (of 47; 12.3%) did not disclose any COI. Thirteen (of 22; 59.1%) contained narratives that favored the treatment group and 19 (of 22; 86.4%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Importantly, 3 systematic reviews were industry-sponsored. In terms of our subgroup analysis, we found several additional industry ties within the primary studies. Conclusion: Our study calls attention to conflicts of interest, industry sponsorship, and their influence on research outcomes in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Further, we provide examples of how specific industry ties can influence systematic reviews and recommendations for reporting.

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 Survey of the Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation

2013 ◽  
Vol 93 (11) ◽  
pp. 1456-1466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Gianola ◽  
Monica Gasparini ◽  
Michela Agostini ◽  
Greta Castellini ◽  
Davide Corbetta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Functional Limitations ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Item Data ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and the quality of the SRs relevant to the practice of rehabilitation health professionals. Objective The purpose of this study was to examine the reporting quality of a representative sample of published SRs on rehabilitation, focusing on the descriptive, reporting, and bias-related characteristics. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted by searching MEDLINE for aggregative and configurative SRs indexed in 2011 that focused on rehabilitation as restorative of functional limitations. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the SRs and extracted data using a 38-item data collection form derived from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The data were analyzed descriptively. Results Eighty-eight SRs published in 59 journals were sampled. The median compliance with the PRISMA items was 17 (63%) out of 27 items (interquartile ratio=13–22 [48%–82%]). Two thirds of the SRs (n=66) focused on interventions for which efficacy is best addressed through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, and almost all of these SRs included RCTs (63/66 [95%]). More than two thirds of the SRs assessed the quality of primary studies (74/88 [84%]). Twenty-eight reviews (28/88 [32%]) meta-analyzed the results for at least one outcome. One half of the SRs reported positive statistically significant findings (46%), whereas a detrimental result was present only in one review. Conclusions This sample of SRs in the rehabilitation field showed heterogeneous characteristics and a moderate quality of reporting. Poor control of potential source of bias might be improved if more widely agreed-upon evidence-based reporting guidelines will be actively endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals.

scholarly journals The Public’s Perception of the Severity and Global Impact at the Start of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: A Crowdsourcing-Based Cross-Sectional Analysis (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orr Shauly ◽  
Gregory Stone ◽  
Daniel Gould
Keyword(s):  
Age Groups ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Amazon Mechanical Turk ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Us ◽  
Control And Prevention ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
Sectional Analysis

BACKGROUND COVID-19 is a rapidly developing threat to most people in the United States and abroad. The behaviors of the public are important to understand, as they may have a tremendous impact on the course of this novel coronavirus pandemic. OBJECTIVE This study intends to assess the US population’s perception and knowledge of the virus as a threat and the behaviors of the general population in response. METHODS A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted with random volunteers recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk, an internet crowdsourcing service, on March 24, 2020. RESULTS A total of 969 participants met the inclusion criteria. It was found that the perceived severity of the COVID-19 pandemic significantly differed between age groups (<i>P</i>&lt;.001) and men and women (<i>P</i>&lt;.001). A majority of study participants were actively adhering to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. CONCLUSIONS Though many participants identified COVID-19 as a threat, many failed to place themselves appropriately in the correct categories with respect to risk. This may indicate a need for additional public education for appropriately defining the risk of this novel pandemic.

scholarly journals Industry ties and evidence in public comments on the FDA framework for modifications to artificial intelligence/machine learning-based medical devices: a cross sectional study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A Smith ◽  
Roxanna E Abhari ◽  
Zain U Hussain ◽  
Carl Heneghan ◽  
Gary S Collins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Machine Learning ◽  
Medical Device ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractObjectivesTo determine the extent and disclosure of financial ties to industry and use of scientific evidence in comments on a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory framework for modifications to artificial intelligence/machine Learning (AI/ML)-based software as a medical device (SaMD).DesignCross-sectional study.SettingWe searched all publicly available comments on the FDA “Proposed Regulatory Framework for Modifications to Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) - Discussion Paper and Request for Feedback” from April 2nd 2019 to August 8th 2019.Main outcome measuresThe proportion of articles submitted by parties with financial ties to industry, disclosing those ties, citing scientific articles, citing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and using a systematic process to identify relevant literature.ResultsWe analysed 125 comments submitted on the proposed framework. 79 (63%) comments came from parties with financial ties; for 36 (29%) comments it was not clear and the absence of financial ties could only be confirmed for 10 (8%) comments. No financial ties were disclosed in any of the comments that were not from industry submitters. The vast majority of submitted comments (86%) did not cite any scientific literature, just 4% cited a systematic review or meta-analysis, and no comments indicated that a systematic process was used to identify relevant literature.ConclusionsFinancial ties to industry were common and undisclosed and scientific evidence, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses, were rarely cited. To ensure regulatory frameworks best serve patient interests, the FDA should mandate disclosure of potential conflicts of interest (including financial ties), in comments, encourage the use of scientific evidence and encourage engagement from non-conflicted parties.Strengths and limitations of this study-We analysed the extent of financial ties to industry and the use of scientific evidence in comments on the proposed FDA framework-We used a comprehensive strategy to attempt to identify financial ties to industry-Readers may be able to contribute higher quality comments to subsequent drafts of this framework-There is heterogeneity in the degree of conflict with respect to the framework that the recorded financial ties may represent; some ties will be more likely than others to result in biased commenting-Because the framework could not be classified as pro-industry or not, we did not classify the direction of opinions expressed in comments with respect to the framework and their association with financial ties-We do not know how information submitted to FDA is used internally in the rule-making process

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 Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Cross-Sectional Analysis

10.2196/16978 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e16978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Ottwell ◽  
Taylor C Rogers ◽  
J Michael Anderson ◽  
Austin Johnson ◽  
Matt Vassar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Acne Vulgaris ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background Spin is the misrepresentation of study findings, which may positively or negatively influence the reader’s interpretation of the results. Little is known regarding the prevalence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews, specifically systematic reviews pertaining to the management and treatment of acne vulgaris. Objective The primary objective of this study was to characterize and determine the frequency of the most severe forms of spin in systematic review abstracts and to evaluate whether various study characteristics were associated with spin. Methods Using a cross-sectional study design, we searched PubMed and EMBASE for systematic reviews focusing on the management and treatment of acne vulgaris. Our search returned 316 studies, of which 36 were included in our final sample. To be included, each systematic review must have addressed either pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatment of acne vulgaris. These studies were screened, and data were extracted in duplicate by two blinded investigators. We analyzed systematic review abstracts for the nine most severe types of spin. Results Spin was present in 31% (11/36) of abstracts. A total of 12 examples of spin were identified in the 11 abstracts containing spin, with one abstract containing two instances of spin. The most common type of spin, selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention, was identified five times (5/12, 42%). A total of 44% (16/36) of studies did not report a risk of bias assessment. Of the 11 abstracts containing spin, six abstracts (55%) had not reported a risk of bias assessment or performed a risk of bias assessment but did not discuss it. Spin in abstracts was not significantly associated with a specific intervention type, funding source, or journal impact factor. Conclusions Spin is present in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of acne vulgaris. This paper raises awareness of spin in abstracts and emphasizes the importance of its recognition, which may lead to fewer incidences of spin in future studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document