Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: Associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Volumn 2019, Issue 8, 2019, Pages

  Hansen, Camilla ^a,b,c   Lundh, Andreas ^a,b,d   Rasmussen, Kristine ^c   Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn ^a,b  

^a ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^c Rigshospitalet   (Denmark)

^d HVIDOVRE HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; HUMAN; NUTRITIONAL STATUS;

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; HUMANS; NUTRITIONAL STATUS;

EID: 85071744860     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1469493X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000047.pub2     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Chambers JD, Naci H, Wouters OJ, Pyo J, Gunjal S, Kennedy IR, et al. An assessment of the methodological quality of published network meta-analyses: a systematic review. PLOS One 2015;10(4):e0121715. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121715
2. Dunn 2014 Dunn AG, Arachi D, Hudgins J, Tsafnat G, Coiera E, Bourgeois FT. Financial conflicts of interest and conclusions about neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza: an analysis of systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine 2014;161 (7):513–8. DOI: 10.7326/M14-0933
3. Ebrahim S, Bance S, Athale A, Malachowski C, Ioannidis JP. Meta-analyses with industry involvement are massively published and report no caveats for antidepressants. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2016;70:155–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.021
4. Gomez-Garcia F, Ruano J, Aguilar-Luque M, Gay-Mimbrera J, Maestre-Lopez B, Sanz-Cabanillas JL, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on psoriasis: role of funding sources, conflict of interest and bibliometric indices as predictors of methodological quality. British Journal of Dermatology 2017;176(6):1633–44. DOI: 10.1111/bjd.15380
5. Hartog 2012 Hartog CS, Skupin H, Natanson C, Sun J, Reinhart K. Systematic analysis of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) reviews: proliferation of low-quality reviews overwhelms the results of well-performed meta-analyses. Intensive Care Medicine 2012;38(8):1258–71. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-012-2614-0
6. Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ (Clinical Research) 2006;333(7572):782. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38973.444699.0B
7. Jorgensen AW, Maric KL, Tendal B, Faurschou A, Gotzsche PC. Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: differences in methodological quality and conclusions. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2008;8:60. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-60
8. Lane 2013 Lane PW, Higgins JP, Anagnostelis B, Anzures-Cabrera J, Baker NF, Cappelleri JC, et al. Methodological quality of meta-analyses: matched-pairs comparison over time and between industry-sponsored and academic-sponsored reports. Research Synthesis Methods 2013;4(4):342–50. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1072
9. Wang AT, McCoy CP, Murad MH, Montori VM. Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review. BMJ 2010;340:c1344. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c1344
10. Yank V, Rennie D, Bero LA. Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. BMJ (Clinical Research) 2007; 335(7631):1202–5. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39376.447211.BE
11. Ahmer S, Haider II, Anderson D, Arya P. Do pharmaceutical companies selectively report clinical trial data?. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences 2006;22(3):338–46.
12. Kopelman AM, Gorelick DA, Appelbaum PS. Disclosures of conflicts of interest in psychiatric review articles. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 2013;201(2):84–7. DOI: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e31827f6248
13. Lesser 2007 Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M, Wypij D, Ludwig DS. Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLOS Medicine 2007;4(1):e5. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005
14. Radecki RP. Pharmaceutical sponsorship bias influences thrombolytic literature in acute ischemic stroke. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine 2011;12(4):435–41. DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2011.5.2166
15. Schuit E, Ioannidis JP. Network meta-analyses performed by contracting companies and commissioned by industry. Systematic Reviews 2016;5(1):198. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0377-3
16. Sismondo S. Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2008;29(2):109–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2007.08.001
17. Sismondo S. How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: causal structures and responses. Social Science & Medicine 2008;66(9):1909–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.010
18. Warner TD, Gluck JP. What do we really know about conflicts of interest in biomedical research?. Psychopharmacology 2003;171(1):36–46. DOI: 10.1007/s00213-003-1657-x
19. American Medical Association. Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication. http://www.peerreviewcongress.org/index.html. 2017 (accessed 28 September 2017).
20. Atal I, Trinquart L, Porcher R, Ravaud P. Differential globalization of Industry-and non-industry-sponsored clinical trials. PLOS One 2015;10(12):e0145122. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145122
21. Barnes 1998 Barnes DE, Bero LA. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 1998;279(19):1566–70. DOI: 10.1001/jama.279.19.1566
22. Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet 2005;365(9465):1159–62. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71879-1
23. Chapman S, Eisinga A, Hopewell S, Clarke M. Two-thirds of methodological research remained unpublished after presentation at Cochrane Colloquia: an empirical analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2012;65(5):493–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.09.009; PUBMED: 22214733
24. Chartres N, Fabbri A, Bero LA. Association of industry sponsorship with outcomes of nutrition studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine 2016;176(12):1769–77. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6721
25. Cochrane Community. Colloquium. http://community.cochrane.org/news/events/colloquium (accessed 21 June 2017).
26. FDA 2017 FDA. Medical Device Overview. https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/ImportProgram/ImportBasics/RegulatedProducts/ucm510630.htm Last updated 12 Jan 2017 (accessed 25 April 2018).
27. Goldet G, Howick J. Understanding GRADE: an introduction. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine 2013;6: 50-4. DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12018; PUBMED: 23557528
28. Gotzsche 2012 Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP. Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses? . BMJ 2012;345:e7031. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e7031
29. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (Clinical Research) 2008;336(7650):924–6. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
30. Guyatt 2011 Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(4):383–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
31. Hakoum MB, Anouti S, Al-Gibbawi M, Abou-Jaoude EA, Hasbani DJ, Lopes LC, et al. Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey. BMJ Open 2016;6(8): e011997. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011997
32. Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
33. Horsley T, Dingwall O, Sampson M. Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 8. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000026.pub2
34. Institute of Medicine 2011 Institute of Medicine, Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research. Standards for synthesizing the body of evidence. In: Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S editor(s). Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2011:155–94.
35. IntHout J, Ioannidis JP, Rovers MM, Goeman JJ. Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2016;6(7):e010247. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010247
36. Kirkwood BR, Sterne JA. Essential Medical Statistics. 2nd Edition. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Science, 2003.
37. Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 2. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3
38. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1991;44(11):1271–8. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356 (91)90160-B
39. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLOS Medicine 2016;13(5):e1002028. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028
40. Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ 2011;342:d549. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d549
41. Rosner B. Fundamentals of Biostatistics. Belmont, USA: Brooks/Cole CENGAGE Learning, 2006.
42. Scherer 2018 Scherer RW, Meerpohl JJ, Pfeifer N, Schmucker C, Schwarzer G, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 11. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub4
43. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, et al on behalf of the Cochrane Applicability and Recommendations Methods Group. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June2017). Cochrane, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/ handbook.
44. Shea 2007 Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2007;15(7): 10. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10
45. Stelfox HT, Chua G, O’Rourke K, Detsky AS. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. New England Journal of Medicine 1998;338(2):101–6. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199801083380206
46. Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Altman DG, Moher D, Hrobjartsson A, Lasserson T, et al. A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2016;75:56–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.020
47. Young T, Hopewell S. Methods for obtaining unpublished data. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 11. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000027.pub2
48. Hansen C, Lundh A, Rasmussen K, Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A. Financial conflicts of interest and outcomes and quality of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 12. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000047