Dataset Information

Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Investigating Interventions for Melanoma: Cross-sectional Literature Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous studies have highlighted the potential influence that industry relationships may have on the outcomes of medical research.

Objective

We aimed to determine the prevalence of author conflicts of interest (COIs) in systematic reviews focusing on melanoma interventions, as well as to determine whether the presence of these COIs were associated with an increased likelihood of reporting favorable results and conclusions.

Methods

This cross-sectional study included systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses focusing on interventions for melanoma. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for eligible systematic reviews published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. COI disclosures were cross-referenced with information from the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) Open Payments database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and previously published COI disclosure statements. Results were quantified using descriptive statistics, and relationships were evaluated by Fisher exact tests.

Results

Of the 23 systematic reviews included in our sample, 12 (52%) had at least one author with a COI. Of these 12 reviews, 7 (58%) reported narrative results favoring the treatment group and 9 (75%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 11 systematic reviews without a conflicted author, 4 (36%) reported results favoring the treatment group and 5 (45%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. We found no significant association between the presence of author COIs and the favorability of results (P=.53) or conclusions (P=.15).

Conclusions

Author COIs did not appear to influence the outcomes of systematic reviews regarding melanoma interventions. Clinicians and other readers of dermatology literature should be cognizant of the influence that industry may have on the nature of reported outcomes, including those from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

SUBMITTER: Rulon Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10501528 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Investigating Interventions for Melanoma: Cross-sectional Literature Study.

Rulon Zane Z Powers Kalyn K Anderson J Michael JM Weaver Michael M Johnson Austin A Hartwell Micah M Vassar Matt M

JMIR dermatology 20210607 1

<h4>Background</h4>Previous studies have highlighted the potential influence that industry relationships may have on the outcomes of medical research.<h4>Objective</h4>We aimed to determine the prevalence of author conflicts of interest (COIs) in systematic reviews focusing on melanoma interventions, as well as to determine whether the presence of these COIs were associated with an increased likelihood of reporting favorable results and conclusions.<h4>Methods</h4>This cross-sectional study incl ...[more]

PMID: 37632810

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFew studies have investigated the relationship between industry funding/conflicts of interest and authors' positions in opinion pieces on drug safety. Harmful effects of varenicline, a treatment for smoking cessation, have been highly contested.ObjectiveTo examine the association between pharmaceutical industry funding/authors' financial conflicts of interest and position on varenicline in opinion articles, especially in relation to the minimization of harms; to assess whether opinion pieces on drug safety issues written by authors with conflicts of interest are more frequently cited in the news or social media.DesignCross-sectional analysis.ParticipantsEnglish language opinion pieces and narrative reviews about varenicline published between May 2006 and February 2019.Main measuresOdds ratios and 95% confidence intervals; the Mann-Whitney two-sample statistic was used to test for differences in Altmetric scores, a measure of media attention.Key resultsOf the 221 included articles, 30.3% (67) disclosed the funding source and 62.9% (139) disclosed authors' conflicts of interest. Authors of opinion pieces on varenicline who reported financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry (as a conflict of interest or funding source) were more likely to minimise the cardiovascular and psychiatric risk of varenicline compared to those without conflicts of interest or industry funding (OR: 4.00; 95% CI: 1.32 to 12.16 for cardiovascular risk; OR: 8.51; 95% CI: 3.79 to 19.11 for psychiatric risk). These associations persisted in sensitivity analyses. No statistically significant difference in Altmetric score was found between articles with (mean 15.83, median 3) and without (mean 11.90, median 1) conflicts of interest, indicating similar media attention (p-value=0.11).ConclusionsWe found that authors with financial ties to drug companies were more likely to publish opinion pieces that minimised harms of varenicline. These results raise questions about journals' editorial policies to accept reviews of treatments from authors with financial relationships with manufacturers.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the prevalence and accuracy of industry-related financial conflict of interest (COI) disclosures among US physician guideline authors.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingClinical practice guidelines published by the Council of Medical Specialty Societies in 2020.ParticipantsUS physician guideline authors.Main outcome measuresFinancial COI disclosures, both self-reported and determined using Open Payments data.ResultsAmong 270 US physician authors of 20 clinical practice guidelines, 101 (37.4%) disclosed industry-related financial COIs, whereas 199 (73.7%) were found to have received payments from industry when accounting for payments disclosed through Open Payments. The median payments received by authors during the 3-year period was US$27 451 (IQR, US$1385-US$254 677). Comparing authors' self-disclosures with Open Payments, 72 (26.7%) of the authors accurately disclosed their financial COIs, including 68 (25.2%) accurately disclosing no financial COIs and 4 (1.5%) accurately disclosing a financial COI. In contrast, 101 (37.4%) disclosed no financial COIs and were found to have received payments from industry, 23 (8.5%) disclosed a financial COI but had under-reported payments received from industry, 14 (5.2%) disclosed a financial COI but had over-reported payments received from industry and 60 (22.2%) disclosed a financial COI but were found to have both under-reported and over-reported payments received from industry. We found that inaccurate COI disclosure was more frequent among professors compared with non-professors (81.9% vs 63.5%; p<0.001) and among males compared with females (77.7% vs 64.8%; p=0.02). The accuracy of disclosures also varied among medical professional societies (p<0.001).ConclusionsFinancial relationships with industry are common among US physician authors of clinical practice guidelines and are often not accurately disclosed. To ensure high-quality guidelines and unbiased recommendations, more effort is needed to minimise existing COIs and improve disclosure accuracy among panel members.

Dataset Information

Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Investigating Interventions for Melanoma: Cross-sectional Literature Study.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Investigating Interventions for Melanoma: Cross-sectional Literature Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets