ObjectivesTo assess the nature, quality and independence of scientific evidence provided in support of claims in industry-authored educational materials in oral health.DesignA content analysis of educational materials authored by the four major multinational oral health product manufacturers.SettingAcute care settings.Participants68 documents focused on oral health or oral care, targeted at acute care clinicians and identified as ‘educational’ on companies’ international websites.Main outcome measuresData were extracted in duplicate for three areas of focus: (a) products referenced in the documents, (b) product-related claims and (c) citations substantiating claims. We assessed claim–citation pairs to determine if information in the citation supported the claim. We analysed the inter-relationships among cited authors and companies using social network analysis.ResultsDocuments ranged from training videos to posters to brochures to continuing education courses. The majority of educational materials explicitly mentioned a product (59/68, 87%), a branded product (35/68, 51%), and made a product-related claim (55/68, 81%). Among claims accompanied by a citation, citations did not support the majority (91/147, 62%) of claims, largely because citations were unrelated. References used to support claims most often represented lower levels of evidence: only 9% were systematic reviews (7/76) and 13% were randomised controlled trials (10/76). We found a network of 20 authors to account for 37% (n=77/206) of all references in claim–citation pairs; 60% (12/20) of the top 20 cited authors received financial support from one of the four sampled manufacturers.ConclusionsResources to support clinicians’ ongoing education are scarce. However, caution should be exercised when relying on industry-authored materials to support continuing education for oral health. Evidence of sponsorship bias and reliance on key opinion leaders suggests that industry-authored educational materials have promotional intent and should be regulated as such.

Aim: To analyse the nature and extent of sponsorship of nursing professional associations and their major scientific conferences.Design: Cross-sectional content analysis.Methods: Data were extracted from the websites and conference documents of 156 national and international professional nursing associations in 2019 to identify sponsors. Sponsorship prospectuses were analysed to estimate the value and describe the nature of sponsorship arrangements. We analysed sponsorship patterns using social network analysis.Results: Most associations (84/156, 54%) did not report any sponsors. Sponsorship was concentrated among specialty nursing associations in high-income countries. Half of identified sponsors promoted products used in clinical care (50%; 981/1969); the majority represented the medical device industry (69%; 681/981). Top sponsors generally favoured opportunities that promoted interaction with conference attendees. Conclusion:Globally, commercial sponsorship of nursing associations is a common, but not the dominant source of support for these activities. Half of sponsors were commercial entities that manufactured or distributed products used during clinical care, which presents a risk of commercial influence over education and ultimately, clinical practice. Sponsors favoured opportunities to interact directly with nurses, determine educational content, or foster continued interaction.