» Articles » PMID: 27515760

Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest by Authors of Systematic Reviews: a Methodological Survey

Overview
Journal BMJ Open
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2016 Aug 13
PMID 27515760
Citations 19
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Conflicts of interest may bias the findings of systematic reviews. The objective of this methodological survey was to assess the frequency and different types of conflicts of interest that authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews report.

Methods: We searched for systematic reviews using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Ovid MEDLINE (limited to the 119 Core Clinical Journals and the year 2015). We defined a conflict of interest disclosure as the reporting of whether a conflict of interest exists or not, and used a framework to classify conflicts of interest into individual (financial, professional and intellectual) and institutional (financial and advocatory) conflicts of interest. We conducted descriptive and regression analyses.

Results: Of the 200 systematic reviews, 194 (97%) reported authors' conflicts of interest disclosures, typically in the main document, and in a few cases either online (2%) or on request (5%). Of the 194 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, 49% and 33%, respectively, had at least one author reporting any type of conflict of interest (p=0.023). Institutional conflicts of interest were less frequently reported than individual conflicts of interest, and Cochrane reviews were more likely to report individual intellectual conflicts of interest compared with non-Cochrane reviews (19% and 5%, respectively, p=0.004). Regression analyses showed a positive association between reporting of conflicts of interest (at least one type of conflict of interest, individual financial conflict of interest, institutional financial conflict of interest) and journal impact factor and between reporting individual financial conflicts of interest and pharmacological versus non-pharmacological intervention.

Conclusions: Although close to half of the published systematic reviews report that authors (typically many) have conflicts of interest, more than half report that they do not. Authors reported individual conflicts of interest more frequently than institutional and non-financial conflicts of interest.

Citing Articles

Understanding conflicts of interest in rational drug prescription in a developing country: A stakeholder analysis, healthcare guidelines and ethical public health issues.

Moradi F, Bazyar M, Soroush A, Seyedin H, Soleymani F, Etemadi M J Prev Med Hyg. 2023; 64(3):E358-E366.

PMID: 38126000 PMC: 10730053. DOI: 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2023.64.3.3036.


Conflict of interest and risk of bias in systematic reviews on methylphenidate for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a cross-sectional study.

Snellman A, Carlberg S, Olsson L Syst Rev. 2023; 12(1):175.

PMID: 37752560 PMC: 10521496. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02342-x.


Intellectual conflicts of interest among cardiology and pulmonology clinical practice guidelines.

Brems J, Wagner T, Diamant J, Davis A, Clayton E PLoS One. 2023; 18(7):e0288349.

PMID: 37428775 PMC: 10332620. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288349.


Conflict of interest in the peer review process: A survey of peer review reports.

Makarem A, Mroue R, Makarem H, Diab L, Hassan B, Khabsa J PLoS One. 2023; 18(6):e0286908.

PMID: 37289790 PMC: 10249818. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286908.


Mapping conflict of interests: scoping review.

Chimonas S, Mamoor M, Zimbalist S, Barrow B, Bach P, Korenstein D BMJ. 2021; 375:e066576.

PMID: 34732464 PMC: 8565086. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-066576.


References
1.
Schunemann H, Al-Ansary L, Forland F, Kersten S, Komulainen J, Kopp I . Guidelines International Network: Principles for Disclosure of Interests and Management of Conflicts in Guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2015; 163(7):548-53. DOI: 10.7326/M14-1885. View

2.
Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H . A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2015; 1(2):97-111. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.12. View

3.
Harris P, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde J . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2008; 42(2):377-81. PMC: 2700030. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. View

4.
Iqbal S, Wallach J, Khoury M, Schully S, Ioannidis J . Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature. PLoS Biol. 2016; 14(1):e1002333. PMC: 4699702. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002333. View

5.
Dunn A, Arachi D, Hudgins J, Tsafnat G, Coiera E, Bourgeois F . Financial conflicts of interest and conclusions about neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza: an analysis of systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 161(7):513-8. DOI: 10.7326/M14-0933. View