Dataset Information

Relationship between Research Outcomes and Risk of Bias, Study Sponsorship, and Author Financial Conflicts of Interest in Reviews of the Effects of Artificially Sweetened Beverages on Weight Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Reviews.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Artificially sweetened beverage consumption has steadily increased in the last 40 years. Several reviews examining the effects of artificially sweetened beverages on weight outcomes have discrepancies in their results and conclusions. OBJECTIVES:To determine whether risk of bias, results, and conclusions of reviews of effects of artificially sweetened beverage consumption on weight outcomes differ depending on review sponsorship and authors' financial conflicts of interest. METHODS:We performed a systematic review of reviews of the effects of artificially sweetened beverages on weight. Two assessors independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We compared risk of bias, results and conclusions of reviews by different industry sponsors, authors' financial conflict of interest and journal sponsor. We also report the concordance between review results and conclusions. RESULTS:Artificial sweetener industry sponsored reviews were more likely to have favorable results (3/4) than non-industry sponsored reviews (1/23), RR: 17.25 (95% CI: 2.34 to 127.29), as well as favorable conclusions (4/4 vs. 15/23), RR: 1.52 (95% CI: 1.14 to 2.06). All reviews funded by competitor industries reported unfavorable conclusions (4/4). In 42% of the reviews (13/31), authors' financial conflicts of interest were not disclosed. Reviews performed by authors that had a financial conflict of interest with the food industry (disclosed in the article or not) were more likely to have favorable conclusions (18/22) than reviews performed by authors without conflicts of interest (4/9), RR: 7.36 (95% CI: 1.15 to 47.22). Risk of bias was similar and high in most of the reviews. CONCLUSIONS:Review sponsorship and authors' financial conflicts of interest introduced bias affecting the outcomes of reviews of artificially sweetened beverage effects on weight that could not be explained by other sources of bias.

SUBMITTER: Mandrioli D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5015869 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Relationship between Research Outcomes and Risk of Bias, Study Sponsorship, and Author Financial Conflicts of Interest in Reviews of the Effects of Artificially Sweetened Beverages on Weight Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Reviews.

Mandrioli Daniele D Kearns Cristin E CE Bero Lisa A LA

PloS one 20160908 9

<h4>Background</h4>Artificially sweetened beverage consumption has steadily increased in the last 40 years. Several reviews examining the effects of artificially sweetened beverages on weight outcomes have discrepancies in their results and conclusions.<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine whether risk of bias, results, and conclusions of reviews of effects of artificially sweetened beverage consumption on weight outcomes differ depending on review sponsorship and authors' financial conflicts of inter ...[more]

PMID: 27606602

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Industry sponsors' financial interests might bias the conclusions of scientific research. We examined whether financial industry funding or the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest influenced the results of published systematic reviews (SRs) conducted in the field of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and weight gain or obesity. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases to identify published SRs from the inception of the databases to August 31, 2013, on the association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. SR conclusions were independently classified by two researchers into two groups: those that found a positive association and those that did not. These two reviewers were blinded with respect to the stated source of funding and the disclosure of conflicts of interest. We identified 17 SRs (with 18 conclusions). In six of the SRs a financial conflict of interest with some food industry was disclosed. Among those reviews without any reported conflict of interest, 83.3% of the conclusions (10/12) were that SSB consumption could be a potential risk factor for weight gain. In contrast, the same percentage of conclusions, 83.3% (5/6), of those SRs disclosing some financial conflict of interest with the food industry were that the scientific evidence was insufficient to support a positive association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. Those reviews with conflicts of interest were five times more likely to present a conclusion of no positive association than those without them (relative risk: 5.0, 95% CI: 1.3-19.3). An important limitation of this study is the impossibility of ruling out the existence of publication bias among those studies not declaring any conflict of interest. However, the best large randomized trials also support a direct association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. CONCLUSIONS: Financial conflicts of interest may bias conclusions from SRs on SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity.

Project description:BackgroundThe activation of insulin pathways is hypothesized to promote tumor growth and worsen breast cancer survival. Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) can lead to a higher risk of insulin resistance and may affect survival. The authors prospectively evaluated the relation of postdiagnostic SSB and artificially sweetened beverage (ASB) consumption with mortality among women with breast cancer.MethodsIn total, 8863 women with stage I through III breast cancer were identified during follow-up of the Nurses' Health Study (NHS; 1980-2010) and Nurses' Health Study II (NHSII; 1991-2011). Women completed a validated food frequency questionnaire every 4 years after diagnosis and were followed until death or the end of follow-up (2014 for the NHS and 2015 for the NHSII). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality after adjusting for measures of adiposity and other potential predictors of cancer survival.ResultsWith a median follow-up of 11.5 years, 2482 deaths were prospectively documented, including 1050 deaths from breast cancer. Compared with women who had no consumption, women who had SSB consumption after diagnosis had higher breast cancer-specific mortality (>1 to 3 servings per week: HR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.09-1.58]; >3 servings per week: HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.12-1.62]; Ptrend = .001) and all-cause mortality (>1 to 3 servings per week: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.07-1.37]; >3 servings per week: HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.13-1.45]; Ptrend = .0001). In contrast, ASB consumption was not associated with higher breast cancer-specific or all-cause mortality. Furthermore, replacing 1 serving per day of SSB consumption with 1 serving per day of ASB consumption was not associated with a lower risk of mortality.ConclusionsHigher postdiagnostic SSB consumption among breast cancer survivors was associated with higher breast cancer-specific mortality and death from all causes.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report.MethodsWe conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses.ResultsEighty percent of systematic reviews included authors' COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document.ConclusionA fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both.

Project description:BackgroundWhether consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) or artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs) is associated with risk of mortality is of public health interest.MethodsWe examined associations between consumption of SSBs and ASBs with risk of total and cause-specific mortality among 37 716 men from the Health Professional's Follow-up study (from 1986 to 2014) and 80 647 women from the Nurses' Health study (from 1980 to 2014) who were free from chronic diseases at baseline. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.ResultsWe documented 36 436 deaths (7896 cardiovascular disease [CVD] and 12 380 cancer deaths) during 3 415 564 person-years of follow-up. After adjusting for major diet and lifestyle factors, consumption of SSBs was associated with a higher risk of total mortality; pooled hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) across categories (<1/mo, 1-4/mo, 2-6/week, 1-<2/d, and ≥2/d) were 1.00 (reference), 1.01 (0.98, 1.04), 1.06 (1.03, 1.09), 1.14 (1.09, 1.19), and 1.21 (1.13, 1.28; P trend <0.0001). The association was observed for CVD mortality (hazard ratio comparing extreme categories was 1.31 [95% confidence interval, 1.15, 1.50], P trend <0.0001) and cancer mortality (1.16 [1.04, 1.29], P trend =0.0004). ASBs were associated with total and CVD mortality in the highest intake category only; pooled hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) across categories were 1.00 (reference), 0.96 (0.93, 0.99), 0.97 (0.95, 1.00), 0.98 (0.94, 1.03), and 1.04 (1.02, 1.12; P trend = 0.01) for total mortality and 1.00 (reference), 0.93 (0.87, 1.00), 0.95 (0.89, 1.00), 1.02 (0.94, 1.12), and 1.13 (1.02, 1.25; P trend = 0.02) for CVD mortality. In cohort-specific analysis, ASBs were associated with mortality in NHS (Nurses' Health Study) but not in HPFS (Health Professionals Follow-up Study) ( P interaction, 0.01). ASBs were not associated with cancer mortality in either cohort.ConclusionsConsumption of SSBs was positively associated with mortality primarily through CVD mortality and showed a graded association with dose. The positive association between high intake levels of ASBs and total and CVD mortality observed among women requires further confirmation.

Dataset Information

Relationship between Research Outcomes and Risk of Bias, Study Sponsorship, and Author Financial Conflicts of Interest in Reviews of the Effects of Artificially Sweetened Beverages on Weight Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Reviews.

Publications

Relationship between Research Outcomes and Risk of Bias, Study Sponsorship, and Author Financial Conflicts of Interest in Reviews of the Effects of Artificially Sweetened Beverages on Weight Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets