Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey

Hakoum, Maram B; Anouti, Sirine; Al-Gibbawi, Mounir; Abou-Jaoude, Elias A.; Hasbani, Divina Justina; Lopes, Luciane Cruz; Agarwal, Arnav; Guyatt, Gordon; Akl, Elie A.

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011997

Cited by 53 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally, RCT and cohort studies preferred to provide more detailed information on COI than those in systematic reviews. Our nding on the rate of COI disclosure is largely consistent with those studies assessing SRs [16][17][18] and no signi cant difference on rates of COI was found between trials in drug and surgical eld.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…94.2% of surgical systematic reviews published in 2017 reported authors' COI disclosures in our survey. This result probably caused by that more than 95% of medical journals had a COI policy taking disclosure as an essential part of biomedical studies [16]. However, among 147 studies declared their COI, only 35 (22.6%) declared at least one of COI in their study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…One of the reasons for this is that few researchers are unaware some behaviors including receiving support for food and beverages, academic competition are also con icts of interests and could also affect their research [9,27]. Another potential possibility is the policies regarding some COI are constantly obscure, such as non-nancial COI [16,[28][29][30]. We reviewed "instruction to authors" on journals' website which publishing our including SRs, and most of the COI policies only involve some speci c types of COI, such as grant, consulting fee, employment and so on.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of studies regarding COI increased considerably in recently year because of the concerns about competing interests between researchers and manufactures [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. In 2017, the Lancet published a collection to discuss issues relating to con ict of interests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Hirst

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Hirst

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In total, we collected six different dimensions of COIs including whether there is a COI clear process reporting if the authors reported affiliation, financial and intellectual COIs. We also collected the type of organization that formulated the recommendations and, if available, the institution's potential financial or advocatory COIs (31). Two reviewers (DF and CC) collected this data independently.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vitamin D recommendations in nutritional guidelines: A systematic quality evaluation using AGREE-2 and analysis of potential predictors

Navarro

López-García-Franco

Niño-de-Guzmán

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Vitamin D has been widely promoted for bone health through supplementation and fortification of the general population. However, there is growing evidence that does not support these strategies. Our aim is to review the quality and recommendations on vitamin D nutritional and clinical practice guidelines and explore predictive factors for their direction and strength. Methods We searched Medline, TRIP, G-I-N and guidelines.gov databases for guidelines from January 2010 to January 2018. We performed a descriptive analysis, a quality appraisal using AGREE II scores (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation) and a bivariate analysis evaluating the association between direction and strength of recommendations, three AGREE II domains’ scores (Rigor of development, Applicability and Editorial Independence) and pre-specified characteristics. Results We included 24 guidelines in our review. Nine recommended supplementation, eight suggested its use, and seven did not recommend it. The mean score for “Rigor of development” domain was 40.1%. For the “Applicability” domain 34.5% and 39.6% for “Editorial independence” domain. The majority of guidelines did not reach and overall of 60% on these independent scores to be considered high quality. Guidelines with higher scores in these domains were less likely to recommend or suggest vitamin D supplementation (64% recommending against vs 29% suggesting for, and 27% recommending for; p=0.002, 52% vs 26% and 25%; p=0.003, 61% vs 35% and 24%; p=0.001, respectively). Guidelines with potential conflicts of interest were more likely to recommend or suggest vitamin D supplementation (likelihood ratio: p=0.018). Conclusions Policymakers, clinicians and patients should be aware that lower quality guidelines, and those reporting conflicts of interest are more likely to promote vitamin D supplementation. Guideline organizations should improve the quality of their recommendations’ development and the management of conflicts of interest. Users and editors should be aware of these findings when using and appraising guidelines.

show abstract

Financial conflicts of interest and outcomes and quality of systematic reviews

Hansen

Lundh

Rasmussen

et al. 2017

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Methodology). The objectives are as follows: The primary objectives are to investigate to what degree: • funding of systematic reviews by drug, device, and imaging companies and authors' other financial conflicts of interest are associated with effect size estimate; and 1 Financial conflicts of interest and outcomes and quality of systematic reviews (Protocol)

show abstract

Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey

Cited by 53 publications

References 34 publications

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

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

Vitamin D recommendations in nutritional guidelines: A systematic quality evaluation using AGREE-2 and analysis of potential predictors

Financial conflicts of interest and outcomes and quality of systematic reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About