Cargando…
Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study
OBJECTIVE: To (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author–industry financial ties and author–industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7229983/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32398334 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035633 |
_version_ | 1783534865479630848 |
---|---|
author | Turner, Kimberly Carboni-Jiménez, Andrea Benea, Carla Elder, Katharine Levis, Brooke Boruff, Jill Roseman, Michelle Bero, Lisa Lexchin, Joel Turner, Erick H Benedetti, Andrea Thombs, Brett D |
author_facet | Turner, Kimberly Carboni-Jiménez, Andrea Benea, Carla Elder, Katharine Levis, Brooke Boruff, Jill Roseman, Michelle Bero, Lisa Lexchin, Joel Turner, Erick H Benedetti, Andrea Thombs, Brett D |
author_sort | Turner, Kimberly |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author–industry financial ties and author–industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010. DESIGN: Review of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING ARTICLES: We selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥2 RCTs and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs. RESULTS: 90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% CI 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author–industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting trial funding was ≤0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author–industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI 2% to 19%). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of trial funding sources, trial author–industry financial ties and trial author–industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7229983 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72299832020-05-19 Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study Turner, Kimberly Carboni-Jiménez, Andrea Benea, Carla Elder, Katharine Levis, Brooke Boruff, Jill Roseman, Michelle Bero, Lisa Lexchin, Joel Turner, Erick H Benedetti, Andrea Thombs, Brett D BMJ Open Research Methods OBJECTIVE: To (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author–industry financial ties and author–industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010. DESIGN: Review of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING ARTICLES: We selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥2 RCTs and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs. RESULTS: 90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% CI 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author–industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting trial funding was ≤0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author–industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI 2% to 19%). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of trial funding sources, trial author–industry financial ties and trial author–industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7229983/ /pubmed/32398334 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035633 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Research Methods Turner, Kimberly Carboni-Jiménez, Andrea Benea, Carla Elder, Katharine Levis, Brooke Boruff, Jill Roseman, Michelle Bero, Lisa Lexchin, Joel Turner, Erick H Benedetti, Andrea Thombs, Brett D Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study |
title | Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study |
title_full | Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study |
title_fullStr | Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study |
title_full_unstemmed | Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study |
title_short | Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study |
title_sort | reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in cochrane and non-cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study |
topic | Research Methods |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7229983/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32398334 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035633 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT turnerkimberly reportingofdrugtrialfundingsourcesandauthorfinancialconflictsofinterestincochraneandnoncochranemetaanalysesacrosssectionalstudy AT carbonijimenezandrea reportingofdrugtrialfundingsourcesandauthorfinancialconflictsofinterestincochraneandnoncochranemetaanalysesacrosssectionalstudy AT beneacarla reportingofdrugtrialfundingsourcesandauthorfinancialconflictsofinterestincochraneandnoncochranemetaanalysesacrosssectionalstudy AT elderkatharine reportingofdrugtrialfundingsourcesandauthorfinancialconflictsofinterestincochraneandnoncochranemetaanalysesacrosssectionalstudy AT levisbrooke reportingofdrugtrialfundingsourcesandauthorfinancialconflictsofinterestincochraneandnoncochranemetaanalysesacrosssectionalstudy AT boruffjill reportingofdrugtrialfundingsourcesandauthorfinancialconflictsofinterestincochraneandnoncochranemetaanalysesacrosssectionalstudy AT rosemanmichelle reportingofdrugtrialfundingsourcesandauthorfinancialconflictsofinterestincochraneandnoncochranemetaanalysesacrosssectionalstudy AT berolisa reportingofdrugtrialfundingsourcesandauthorfinancialconflictsofinterestincochraneandnoncochranemetaanalysesacrosssectionalstudy AT lexchinjoel reportingofdrugtrialfundingsourcesandauthorfinancialconflictsofinterestincochraneandnoncochranemetaanalysesacrosssectionalstudy AT turnererickh reportingofdrugtrialfundingsourcesandauthorfinancialconflictsofinterestincochraneandnoncochranemetaanalysesacrosssectionalstudy AT benedettiandrea reportingofdrugtrialfundingsourcesandauthorfinancialconflictsofinterestincochraneandnoncochranemetaanalysesacrosssectionalstudy AT thombsbrettd reportingofdrugtrialfundingsourcesandauthorfinancialconflictsofinterestincochraneandnoncochranemetaanalysesacrosssectionalstudy |