Cargando…

Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and inform evidence-based decision making in health care. Earlier studies found association with industry to be negatively associated with methodological quality of SRs. However, this has not been investigated in SRs on vacci...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pieper, Dawid, Hellbrecht, Irma, Zhao, Linlu, Baur, Clemens, Pick, Georgia, Schneider, Sarah, Harder, Thomas, Young, Kelsey, Tricco, Andrea C., Westhaver, Ella, Tunis, Matthew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9395849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35996186
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02051-x
_version_ 1784771793194582016
author Pieper, Dawid
Hellbrecht, Irma
Zhao, Linlu
Baur, Clemens
Pick, Georgia
Schneider, Sarah
Harder, Thomas
Young, Kelsey
Tricco, Andrea C.
Westhaver, Ella
Tunis, Matthew
author_facet Pieper, Dawid
Hellbrecht, Irma
Zhao, Linlu
Baur, Clemens
Pick, Georgia
Schneider, Sarah
Harder, Thomas
Young, Kelsey
Tricco, Andrea C.
Westhaver, Ella
Tunis, Matthew
author_sort Pieper, Dawid
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and inform evidence-based decision making in health care. Earlier studies found association with industry to be negatively associated with methodological quality of SRs. However, this has not been investigated in SRs on vaccines. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE in March 2020. The results were restricted to those published between 2016 and 2019 with no language restrictions. Study characteristics were extracted by one person and checked by an experienced reviewer. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool by multiple reviewers after a calibration exercise was performed. A summary score for each SR was calculated. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test were performed to compare both groups. RESULTS: Out of 185 SRs that met all inclusion criteria, 27 SRs were industry funded. Those were matched with 30 non-industry funded SRs resulting in a total sample size of 57. The mean AMSTAR 2 summary score across all SRs was 0.49. Overall, the median AMSTAR 2 summary score was higher for the non-industry funded SRs than for the industry-funded SRs (0.62 vs. 0.36; p < .00001). Lower ratings for industry funded SRs were consistent across all but one AMSTAR 2 item, though significantly lower only for three specific items. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of SRs in vaccination is comparable to SRs in other fields, while it is still suboptimal. We are not able to provide a satisfactory explanation why industry funded SRs had a lower methodological quality than non-industry funded SRs over recent years. Industry funding is an important indicator of methodological quality for vaccine SRs and should be carefully considered when appraising SR quality. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-022-02051-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9395849
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93958492022-08-23 Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019 Pieper, Dawid Hellbrecht, Irma Zhao, Linlu Baur, Clemens Pick, Georgia Schneider, Sarah Harder, Thomas Young, Kelsey Tricco, Andrea C. Westhaver, Ella Tunis, Matthew Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and inform evidence-based decision making in health care. Earlier studies found association with industry to be negatively associated with methodological quality of SRs. However, this has not been investigated in SRs on vaccines. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE in March 2020. The results were restricted to those published between 2016 and 2019 with no language restrictions. Study characteristics were extracted by one person and checked by an experienced reviewer. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool by multiple reviewers after a calibration exercise was performed. A summary score for each SR was calculated. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test were performed to compare both groups. RESULTS: Out of 185 SRs that met all inclusion criteria, 27 SRs were industry funded. Those were matched with 30 non-industry funded SRs resulting in a total sample size of 57. The mean AMSTAR 2 summary score across all SRs was 0.49. Overall, the median AMSTAR 2 summary score was higher for the non-industry funded SRs than for the industry-funded SRs (0.62 vs. 0.36; p < .00001). Lower ratings for industry funded SRs were consistent across all but one AMSTAR 2 item, though significantly lower only for three specific items. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of SRs in vaccination is comparable to SRs in other fields, while it is still suboptimal. We are not able to provide a satisfactory explanation why industry funded SRs had a lower methodological quality than non-industry funded SRs over recent years. Industry funding is an important indicator of methodological quality for vaccine SRs and should be carefully considered when appraising SR quality. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-022-02051-x. BioMed Central 2022-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9395849/ /pubmed/35996186 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02051-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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
Pieper, Dawid
Hellbrecht, Irma
Zhao, Linlu
Baur, Clemens
Pick, Georgia
Schneider, Sarah
Harder, Thomas
Young, Kelsey
Tricco, Andrea C.
Westhaver, Ella
Tunis, Matthew
Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019
title Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019
title_full Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019
title_fullStr Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019
title_full_unstemmed Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019
title_short Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019
title_sort impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9395849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35996186
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02051-x
work_keys_str_mv AT pieperdawid impactofindustrysponsorshiponthequalityofsystematicreviewsofvaccinesacrosssectionalanalysisofstudiespublishedfrom2016to2019
AT hellbrechtirma impactofindustrysponsorshiponthequalityofsystematicreviewsofvaccinesacrosssectionalanalysisofstudiespublishedfrom2016to2019
AT zhaolinlu impactofindustrysponsorshiponthequalityofsystematicreviewsofvaccinesacrosssectionalanalysisofstudiespublishedfrom2016to2019
AT baurclemens impactofindustrysponsorshiponthequalityofsystematicreviewsofvaccinesacrosssectionalanalysisofstudiespublishedfrom2016to2019
AT pickgeorgia impactofindustrysponsorshiponthequalityofsystematicreviewsofvaccinesacrosssectionalanalysisofstudiespublishedfrom2016to2019
AT schneidersarah impactofindustrysponsorshiponthequalityofsystematicreviewsofvaccinesacrosssectionalanalysisofstudiespublishedfrom2016to2019
AT harderthomas impactofindustrysponsorshiponthequalityofsystematicreviewsofvaccinesacrosssectionalanalysisofstudiespublishedfrom2016to2019
AT youngkelsey impactofindustrysponsorshiponthequalityofsystematicreviewsofvaccinesacrosssectionalanalysisofstudiespublishedfrom2016to2019
AT triccoandreac impactofindustrysponsorshiponthequalityofsystematicreviewsofvaccinesacrosssectionalanalysisofstudiespublishedfrom2016to2019
AT westhaverella impactofindustrysponsorshiponthequalityofsystematicreviewsofvaccinesacrosssectionalanalysisofstudiespublishedfrom2016to2019
AT tunismatthew impactofindustrysponsorshiponthequalityofsystematicreviewsofvaccinesacrosssectionalanalysisofstudiespublishedfrom2016to2019