Cargando…

Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009

BACKGROUND: A previous study found that 2 of 29 (6.9%) meta-analyses published in high-impact journals in 2009 reported included drug trials’ funding sources, and none reported trial authors’ financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) or industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved si...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Benea, Carla, Turner, Kimberly A., Roseman, Michelle, Bero, Lisa A., Lexchin, Joel, Turner, Erick H., Thombs, Brett D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7140556/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32268911
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01318-5
_version_ 1783519018237296640
author Benea, Carla
Turner, Kimberly A.
Roseman, Michelle
Bero, Lisa A.
Lexchin, Joel
Turner, Erick H.
Thombs, Brett D.
author_facet Benea, Carla
Turner, Kimberly A.
Roseman, Michelle
Bero, Lisa A.
Lexchin, Joel
Turner, Erick H.
Thombs, Brett D.
author_sort Benea, Carla
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A previous study found that 2 of 29 (6.9%) meta-analyses published in high-impact journals in 2009 reported included drug trials’ funding sources, and none reported trial authors’ financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) or industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved since 2009. Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which pharmaceutical industry funding and author-industry FCOIs and employment from included drug trials are reported in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals and (2) compare current reporting with results from 2009. METHODS: We searched PubMed (January 2017–October 2018) for systematic reviews with meta-analyses including ≥ 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patented drugs. We included 3 meta-analyses published January 2017–October 2018 from each of 4 high-impact general medicine journals, high-impact journals from 5 specialty areas, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as in the previous study. RESULTS: Among 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 13 of 29 (44.8%) reported the funding source of included trials compared to 2 of 29 (6.9%) in 2009, a difference of 37.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.7 to 56.3%); this included 7 of 11 (63.6%) from general medicine journals, 3 of 15 (20.0%) from specialty medicine journals, and 3 of 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews. Only 2 of 29 meta-analyses (6.9%) reported trial author FCOIs, and none reported trial author-industry employment. PROTOCOL PUBLICATION: A protocol was uploaded to the Open Science Framework prior to initiating the study. https://osf.io/8xt5p/ LIMITATIONS: We examined only a relatively small number of meta-analyses from selected high-impact journals and compared results to a similarly small sample from an earlier time period. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of drug trial sponsorship and author FCOIs in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals has increased since 2009 but is still suboptimal. Standards on reporting of trial funding described in the forthcoming revised PRISMA statement should be adapted and enforced by journals to improve reporting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7140556
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71405562020-04-14 Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009 Benea, Carla Turner, Kimberly A. Roseman, Michelle Bero, Lisa A. Lexchin, Joel Turner, Erick H. Thombs, Brett D. Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: A previous study found that 2 of 29 (6.9%) meta-analyses published in high-impact journals in 2009 reported included drug trials’ funding sources, and none reported trial authors’ financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) or industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved since 2009. Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which pharmaceutical industry funding and author-industry FCOIs and employment from included drug trials are reported in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals and (2) compare current reporting with results from 2009. METHODS: We searched PubMed (January 2017–October 2018) for systematic reviews with meta-analyses including ≥ 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patented drugs. We included 3 meta-analyses published January 2017–October 2018 from each of 4 high-impact general medicine journals, high-impact journals from 5 specialty areas, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as in the previous study. RESULTS: Among 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 13 of 29 (44.8%) reported the funding source of included trials compared to 2 of 29 (6.9%) in 2009, a difference of 37.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.7 to 56.3%); this included 7 of 11 (63.6%) from general medicine journals, 3 of 15 (20.0%) from specialty medicine journals, and 3 of 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews. Only 2 of 29 meta-analyses (6.9%) reported trial author FCOIs, and none reported trial author-industry employment. PROTOCOL PUBLICATION: A protocol was uploaded to the Open Science Framework prior to initiating the study. https://osf.io/8xt5p/ LIMITATIONS: We examined only a relatively small number of meta-analyses from selected high-impact journals and compared results to a similarly small sample from an earlier time period. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of drug trial sponsorship and author FCOIs in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals has increased since 2009 but is still suboptimal. Standards on reporting of trial funding described in the forthcoming revised PRISMA statement should be adapted and enforced by journals to improve reporting. BioMed Central 2020-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7140556/ /pubmed/32268911 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01318-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Benea, Carla
Turner, Kimberly A.
Roseman, Michelle
Bero, Lisa A.
Lexchin, Joel
Turner, Erick H.
Thombs, Brett D.
Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009
title Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009
title_full Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009
title_fullStr Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009
title_full_unstemmed Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009
title_short Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009
title_sort reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7140556/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32268911
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01318-5
work_keys_str_mv AT beneacarla reportingoffinancialconflictsofinterestinmetaanalysesofdrugtrialspublishedinhighimpactmedicaljournalscomparisonofresultsfrom2017to2018and2009
AT turnerkimberlya reportingoffinancialconflictsofinterestinmetaanalysesofdrugtrialspublishedinhighimpactmedicaljournalscomparisonofresultsfrom2017to2018and2009
AT rosemanmichelle reportingoffinancialconflictsofinterestinmetaanalysesofdrugtrialspublishedinhighimpactmedicaljournalscomparisonofresultsfrom2017to2018and2009
AT berolisaa reportingoffinancialconflictsofinterestinmetaanalysesofdrugtrialspublishedinhighimpactmedicaljournalscomparisonofresultsfrom2017to2018and2009
AT lexchinjoel reportingoffinancialconflictsofinterestinmetaanalysesofdrugtrialspublishedinhighimpactmedicaljournalscomparisonofresultsfrom2017to2018and2009
AT turnererickh reportingoffinancialconflictsofinterestinmetaanalysesofdrugtrialspublishedinhighimpactmedicaljournalscomparisonofresultsfrom2017to2018and2009
AT thombsbrettd reportingoffinancialconflictsofinterestinmetaanalysesofdrugtrialspublishedinhighimpactmedicaljournalscomparisonofresultsfrom2017to2018and2009