Cargando…

Network meta-analyses performed by contracting companies and commissioned by industry

BACKGROUND: Industry commissions contracting companies to perform network meta-analysis for health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement submissions. Our objective was to estimate the number of network meta-analyses performed by consulting companies contracted by industry, to assess whether...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schuit, Ewoud, Ioannidis, John PA
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5123429/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27884175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0377-3
_version_ 1782469735990951936
author Schuit, Ewoud
Ioannidis, John PA
author_facet Schuit, Ewoud
Ioannidis, John PA
author_sort Schuit, Ewoud
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Industry commissions contracting companies to perform network meta-analysis for health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement submissions. Our objective was to estimate the number of network meta-analyses performed by consulting companies contracted by industry, to assess whether they were published, and to explore reasons for non-publication. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE for network meta-analyses of randomized trials. Papers were included if they had authors affiliated with any contracting company. All identified contracting companies as well as additional ones from the list of the exhibitors at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, an annual meeting that representatives from many contracting companies attend and exhibit at, were surveyed regarding conduct and publication of network meta-analyses. RESULTS: In 162 of 822 (20%) network meta-analysis papers, authors were affiliated to 66 contracting companies. Another 36 contracting companies were identified by the exhibitors list. Three companies had no contact information and six merged with others, therefore 93 companies were contacted. Thirty seven out of ninety three (40%) companies responded, and 19 indicated that they had performed a total of 476 network meta-analyses, but only 102 (21%) papers were published. Thirteen companies that disclosed to have conducted 174 network meta-analyses (45 published) provided reasons for non-publication. Of the 129 still unpublished meta-analyses, for 40 there were plans for future publication, for 37 the sponsor did not allow publication, for 16 the contracting companies did not plan to publish the meta-analysis, for another 23 plans were unclear, and the remaining 13 were used as HTA submission. The protocol of the network meta-analysis was publically available from 11/162 (6.8%) network meta-analyses published by authors affiliated with contracting companies. CONCLUSIONS: There is a prolific sector of professional contracting companies that perform network meta-analyses. Industry commissions many network meta-analyses, but most are not registered before or published after analyses in the scientific literature. Mechanisms to improve publication rates of network meta-analysis commissioned by industry are warranted. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0377-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5123429
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51234292016-12-08 Network meta-analyses performed by contracting companies and commissioned by industry Schuit, Ewoud Ioannidis, John PA Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Industry commissions contracting companies to perform network meta-analysis for health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement submissions. Our objective was to estimate the number of network meta-analyses performed by consulting companies contracted by industry, to assess whether they were published, and to explore reasons for non-publication. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE for network meta-analyses of randomized trials. Papers were included if they had authors affiliated with any contracting company. All identified contracting companies as well as additional ones from the list of the exhibitors at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, an annual meeting that representatives from many contracting companies attend and exhibit at, were surveyed regarding conduct and publication of network meta-analyses. RESULTS: In 162 of 822 (20%) network meta-analysis papers, authors were affiliated to 66 contracting companies. Another 36 contracting companies were identified by the exhibitors list. Three companies had no contact information and six merged with others, therefore 93 companies were contacted. Thirty seven out of ninety three (40%) companies responded, and 19 indicated that they had performed a total of 476 network meta-analyses, but only 102 (21%) papers were published. Thirteen companies that disclosed to have conducted 174 network meta-analyses (45 published) provided reasons for non-publication. Of the 129 still unpublished meta-analyses, for 40 there were plans for future publication, for 37 the sponsor did not allow publication, for 16 the contracting companies did not plan to publish the meta-analysis, for another 23 plans were unclear, and the remaining 13 were used as HTA submission. The protocol of the network meta-analysis was publically available from 11/162 (6.8%) network meta-analyses published by authors affiliated with contracting companies. CONCLUSIONS: There is a prolific sector of professional contracting companies that perform network meta-analyses. Industry commissions many network meta-analyses, but most are not registered before or published after analyses in the scientific literature. Mechanisms to improve publication rates of network meta-analysis commissioned by industry are warranted. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0377-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5123429/ /pubmed/27884175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0377-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Schuit, Ewoud
Ioannidis, John PA
Network meta-analyses performed by contracting companies and commissioned by industry
title Network meta-analyses performed by contracting companies and commissioned by industry
title_full Network meta-analyses performed by contracting companies and commissioned by industry
title_fullStr Network meta-analyses performed by contracting companies and commissioned by industry
title_full_unstemmed Network meta-analyses performed by contracting companies and commissioned by industry
title_short Network meta-analyses performed by contracting companies and commissioned by industry
title_sort network meta-analyses performed by contracting companies and commissioned by industry
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5123429/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27884175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0377-3
work_keys_str_mv AT schuitewoud networkmetaanalysesperformedbycontractingcompaniesandcommissionedbyindustry
AT ioannidisjohnpa networkmetaanalysesperformedbycontractingcompaniesandcommissionedbyindustry