Dataset Information

Research Review: Conflicts of Interest (COIs) in autism early intervention research - a meta-analysis of COI influences on intervention effects.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The presence, types, disclosure rates, and effects of conflicts of interest (COIs) on autism early intervention research have not previously been studied. The purpose of this study was to examine these issues.

Methods

This study is a secondary analysis of a comprehensive meta-analysis of all group-design, nonpharmacological early intervention autism research conducted between 1970 and 2018. We coded reports for the presence/absence of COI statements, the types of COIs that were disclosed, and for 8 types of COIs, including (a) the author developed the intervention, (b) the author is affiliated with a clinical provider, (c) the author is employed by a clinical provider, (d) the author is affiliated with an institution that trains others to use the intervention, (e) the author receives payment or royalties related to the intervention, (f) the study was funded by an intervention provider, (g) the study used a commercially available measure developed by the author, and (h) proceeds of the intervention fund the author's research. Frequencies and proportions were calculated to determine prevalence of COIs and COI disclosures. Meta-analysis was used to estimate summary effects by COI type and to determine if they were larger than for reports with no coded COIs.

Results

Seventy percent of reports were coded for ≥ 1 COI, but only ~ 6% of reports contained COI statements fully accounting for all coded COIs. Metaregressions did not detect significant influences of any COI type on summary effects; however, point estimates for each COI type were larger than for reports with no coded COIs.

Conclusions

Conflicts of interest are prevalent but under-reported in autism early intervention research. Improved reporting practices are necessary for researcher transparency and would enable more robust examination of the effects of COIs on research outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Bottema-Beutel K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7606324 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe tobacco control community has raised some concerns about whether studies on electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) published in scientific journals hide conflicts of interest (COI) and whether such reports are biased. This study assessed potential COI in the e-cigarette scientific literature.MethodsCross-sectional study was conducted on e-cigarette publications indexed in PubMed up to August 2014. We extracted information about the authors (affiliations, location, etc.), publication characteristics (type, topic, subject, etc.), results and conclusions, presence of a COI statement, and funding by and/or financial ties to pharmaceutical, tobacco, and/or e-cigarette companies. An algorithm to determine the COI disclosure status was created based on the information in the publication. Prevalence ratios (PRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to identify associations with COI disclosure, controlling for several independent variables.ResultsOf the 404 publications included in the analysis, 37.1% (n=150) had no COI disclosure statement, 38.6% declared no COI, 13.4% declared potential COI with pharmaceutical companies, 3.0% with tobacco companies, and 10.6% with e-cigarette companies. The conclusions in publications with COI, which were mainly tied to pharmaceutical companies, were more likely to be favourable to e-cigarette use (PR=2.23; 95% CI: 1.43-3.46). Publications that supported the use of e-cigarettes for both harm reduction (PR=1.81; 95%CI: 1.14-2.89) and smoking cessation (PR=2.02; 95% CI: 1.26-3.23) were more likely to have conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarettes.ConclusionsOne-third of the publications reporting studies on e-cigarettes did not have a COI disclosure statement, and this proportion was even higher in news articles, editorials and other types of publications. Papers with conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarette use were more likely to have COI. Journal editors and reviewers should consider evaluating publications, including funding sources, to determine whether the results and conclusions may be biased.

Project description:BackgroundThe influence of the pharmaceutical industry and other stakeholders on medical science has been increasingly criticised. When dealing with conflicts of interest in scientific publications it is important to ensure the best possible transparency. The objective of this work is to examine the disclosure practice of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest in German language publications concerning health services research for the first time.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search in the PubMed data base using the MeSH term "health services research". The review was conducted on July 10, 2006, setting the limits "dates: published in the last 2 years" and "languages: German" (only articles with abstracts). 124 articles in 31 magazines were found. In the magazines the instructions for authors were examined as to whether a statement on conflicts of interest is expected--and if, in which form. Regarding the articles in the journals which require a statement, we examined whether the statement is explicitly published. The results are descriptively represented.Results13 magazines (42%) do not require any statement on conflicts of interest, whereas 18 journals (58%) expect a statement. Two of these 18 magazines refer explicitly to the uniform requirements of the International Committee of the Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE); the remaining 16 magazines give differently accentuated instructions on how to disclose conflicts of interest, whereby the focus is primarily on financial issues. A statement on conflicts of interest is explicitly published in 11 of the 71 articles (15%) which are found in the magazines that require a statement with the submission of a manuscript. Related to the total number of included articles, this means that the reader explicitly receives information on potential conflicts of interest in 9% of the cases (11 of 124 articles). Statements of others that are involved in the publication process (reviewers, editors) are not available in any of the articles examined.ConclusionA better sensitization for possible conflicts of interest in German publications concerning health services research is necessary. We suggest tightening the criteria for disclosure in the instructions for authors in the scientific journals. Among other things the equivalent consideration of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest as well as the obligatory publication of the statements should be part of good practice.