Association between industry sponsorship and author conflicts of interest with outcomes of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions for opioid use disorder

Ferrell, Sydney; Demla, Simran; Anderson, Jon; Weaver, Michael; Torgerson, Trevor; Hartwell, Micah; Vassar, Matt

doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108598

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 AMSTAR 2 ratings at item level for industry funded vs. non-industry funded SRs pharmaceuticals given some challenges that are mostly unique to vaccine SRs, there is overlap in the manufacturers of vaccines and pharmaceuticals. Several studies found that industry-funded SRs had lower methodological quality and had more flaws in reporting [97][98][99], while a recently published small study did not [100]. One of these studies also highlighted that the quality of industry funded SRs improved over time [99].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and inform evidence-based decision making in health care. Earlier studies found association with industry to be negatively associated with methodological quality of SRs. However, this has not been investigated in SRs on vaccines. Methods We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE in March 2020. The results were restricted to those published between 2016 and 2019 with no language restrictions. Study characteristics were extracted by one person and checked by an experienced reviewer. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool by multiple reviewers after a calibration exercise was performed. A summary score for each SR was calculated. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test were performed to compare both groups. Results Out of 185 SRs that met all inclusion criteria, 27 SRs were industry funded. Those were matched with 30 non-industry funded SRs resulting in a total sample size of 57. The mean AMSTAR 2 summary score across all SRs was 0.49. Overall, the median AMSTAR 2 summary score was higher for the non-industry funded SRs than for the industry-funded SRs (0.62 vs. 0.36; p < .00001). Lower ratings for industry funded SRs were consistent across all but one AMSTAR 2 item, though significantly lower only for three specific items. Conclusion The methodological quality of SRs in vaccination is comparable to SRs in other fields, while it is still suboptimal. We are not able to provide a satisfactory explanation why industry funded SRs had a lower methodological quality than non-industry funded SRs over recent years. Industry funding is an important indicator of methodological quality for vaccine SRs and should be carefully considered when appraising SR quality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Transparency in Cognitive Training Meta-analyses: A Meta-review

Sandoval-Lentisco,

López-Nicolás,

Tortajada

et al. 2024

Neuropsychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meta-analyses often present flexibility regarding their inclusion criteria, outcomes of interest, statistical analyses, and assessments of the primary studies. For this reason, it is necessary to transparently report all the information that could impact the results. In this meta-review, we aimed to assess the transparency of meta-analyses that examined the benefits of cognitive training, given the ongoing controversy that exists in this field. Ninety-seven meta-analytic reviews were included, which examined a wide range of populations with different clinical conditions and ages. Regarding the reporting, information about the search of the studies, screening procedure, or data collection was detailed by most reviews. However, authors usually failed to report other aspects such as the specific meta-analytic parameters, the formula used to compute the effect sizes, or the data from primary studies that were used to compute the effect sizes. Although some of these practices have improved over the years, others remained the same. Moreover, examining the eligibility criteria of the reviews revealed a great heterogeneity in aspects such as the training duration, age cut-offs, or study designs that were considered. Preregistered meta-analyses often specified poorly how they would deal with the multiplicity of data or assess publication bias in their protocols, and some contained non-disclosed deviations in their eligibility criteria or outcomes of interests. The findings shown here, although they do not question the benefits of cognitive training, illustrate important aspects that future reviews must consider.

show abstract