Reporting of Conflicts of Interest in Meta-analyses of Trials of Pharmacological Treatments

Roseman, Michelle; Milette, Katherine; Bero, Lisa; Coyne, James C.; Lexchin, Joel; Turner, Erick H.; Thombs, Brett D.

doi:10.1001/jama.2011.257

Cited by 134 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A study by Roseman and colleagues (8) investigated the prevalence in which meta-analyses published in high-impact medical journals report on funding sources and conflicts of interest of RCTs that they include. They report that in general, meta-analyses rarely report on COI and funding sources, citing that meta-analyses have no obligation in many high-profile journals to report on conflicts of interest of their included studies (8).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They report that in general, meta-analyses rarely report on COI and funding sources, citing that meta-analyses have no obligation in many high-profile journals to report on conflicts of interest of their included studies (8). These findings are similar to those of the present study, and indicate that the concern of lack of conflict of interest reporting is not exclusive to the field of dentistry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conflict of interest reporting in dentistry meta-analyses: A systematic review

Beyari

Strain²,

Li³

et al. 2014

J Clin Exp Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The issue of reporting conflicts of interest (COI) in medical research has come under scrutiny over the past decade. Absolute transparency is important when dealing with conflicts of interest to provide readers with all essential information required to make an informative decision of the results. The key objective of this study was to examine the prevalence of reporting conflicts of interest in therapeutic dental meta-analyses of Randomized Control Trials (RCTs), and to investigate possible associations with other categorical variables. Study Design: We conducted an extensive literature search across multiple databases to search for relevant review articles for this study. We utilized pre-determined key words, and relied on three reviewers to test and review the use of a data extraction form that was used for the meta-analyses. Data regarding study characteristics, direction of results, and the significance of the results from each meta-analysis were extracted. Results: There were 129 meta-analyses used in this review, and the reporting on conflict of interest was low with only 50 (38.8%) of the articles possessing a conflict of interest statement (either confirming of denying COI). Of these 50 articles, there were only 4 (8%) studies that reported an actual conflict of interest. A statement of conflicts of interest was found in 29 (35.3%) of the papers that reported significant findings, whereas 35% of the papers that reported positive results reported on conflict of interest. Prior to 2009, only 17 (25%) papers reported conflicts of interest, but since 2009, 54.1% of papers collected had a conflict of interest statement. Conclusions: Meta-analyses published in the field of dentistry do not routinely report author conflicts of interest. Although few conflicts appear to exist, the field of dentistry should continue to ensure that best evidence reports provide clear and transparent reporting of potential conflicts of interest in academic journals. Key words:Dentistry, dentition, meta-analysis, quantitative review.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflict of interest reporting in dentistry meta-analyses: A systematic review

Beyari

Strain²,

Li³

et al. 2014

J Clin Exp Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conflict disclosure was at unacceptably low levels in both types of reviews, even though the systematic ones displayed detailed COI notes more often (25% vs 42%; P < 0.005) (15). Similar inaccurate and biased reporting also takes place in many other areas of clinical medicine, especially when primary data from randomized trials on drug interventions are pooled and processed in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (16,17). As a prime example, of the 151 items published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2010, only 46 (30%) provided statements on funding sources of the overviewed trials and 16 (11%) on trial author-industry financial ties and employment (17).…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors

Gasparyan

Ayvazyan²,

Akazhanov³

et al. 2013

Croat Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article overviews evidence on common instances of conflict of interest (COI) in research publications from general and specialized fields of biomedicine. Financial COIs are viewed as the most powerful source of bias, which may even distort citation outcomes of sponsored publications. The urge to boost journal citation indicators by stakeholders of science communication is viewed as a new secondary interest, which may compromize the interaction between authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Comprehensive policies on disclosure of financial and non-financial COIs in scholarly journals are presented as proxies of their indexing in evidence-based databases, and examples of successful medical journals are discussed in detail. Reports on clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical practice guidelines may be unduly influenced by author-pharmaceutical industry relations, but these publications do not always contain explicit disclosures to allow the readers to judge the reliability of the published conclusions and practice-changing recommendations. The article emphasizes the importance of adhering to the guidance on COI from learned associations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). It also considers joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers, and editors as a foundation for appropriately defining and disclosing potential COIs.

show abstract

“…A recent Cochrane review has shown that pharmaceutical industry-sponsored studies overestimate the efficacy and underestimate the harm of their treatments, even when controlling for methodological biases (Lundh et al 2012). Thus, study funding sources and financial COIs of investigators should be considered as risks of bias (Roseman et al 2011; Roseman et al 2012). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cycle of Bias in Health Research: A Framework and Toolbox for Critical Appraisal Training

Odierna

Forsyth

White

et al. 2013

Accountability in Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognizing bias in health research is crucial for evidence-based decision making. We worked with eight community groups to develop materials for nine modular, individualized critical appraisal workshops we conducted with 102 consumers (four workshops), 43 healthcare providers (three workshops), and 33 journalists (two workshops) in California. We presented workshops using a “cycle of bias” framework, and developed a toolbox of presentations, problem-based small group sessions, and skill-building materials to improve participants’ ability to evaluate research for financial and other conflicts of interest, bias, validity, and applicability. Participant feedback indicated that the adaptability of the toolbox and our focus on bias were critical elements in the success of our workshops.

show abstract

Reporting of Conflicts of Interest in Meta-analyses of Trials of Pharmacological Treatments

Cited by 134 publications

References 66 publications

Conflict of interest reporting in dentistry meta-analyses: A systematic review

Conflict of interest reporting in dentistry meta-analyses: A systematic review

Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors

The Cycle of Bias in Health Research: A Framework and Toolbox for Critical Appraisal Training

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About