TY - JOUR
T1 - Association between author conflicts of interest and industry-sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction
AU - Corcoran, Adam
AU - Hillman, Cody
AU - Cole, Tanner
AU - Anderson, Michael
AU - Weaver, Michael
AU - Johnson, Brad
AU - Hartwell, Micah
AU - Vassar, Matt
N1 - Funding Information:
Our second primary objective was to investigate whether industry‐sponsored SRs were more likely to report results and conclusions favoring the intervention. Our sample included only one industry‐sponsored SR, thus preventing this analysis. However, upon further investigation of this SR, we conclude that additional studies on industry‐sponsored SRs are needed. The study was funded by Medispec Ltd., a manufacturer of shockwave therapy devices, and it included seven randomized controlled trials. The SR concluded that low‐intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy is an effective treatment for ED. However, an audit of the primary studies revealed that Medispec Ltd. also funded nearly half of the trials in the SR's meta‐analysis (3/7, 42.9%). All of these industry‐funded studies reported results and discussions that were favorable toward the treatment, whereas those without industry funding were more likely to report mixed or inconclusive results, thus skewing the analysis of the SR. For example, a Cochrane review analyzing pharmacologic efficacy found that studies sponsored by industry or with conflicted authors were more likely to present favorable outcomes than studies with no such conflicts. Our results suggest a unique source of industry bias that may be introduced into SRs without the need for direct funding. Therefore, we contend that authors should report the funding sources of all primary studies included within their SR. This level of transparency is necessary for readers to adequately assess the influence industry funding may have on the results. 11
Funding Information:
This study funded by the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Presidential Mentor‐Mentee Research Fellowship Grant.
Funding Information:
Vassar reports grant funding from the National Institutes of Health, the US Office of Research Integrity, and Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology, all outside the present work. All other authors have nothing to report.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Society of Andrology and European Academy of Andrology
PY - 2021/11
Y1 - 2021/11
N2 - Background: Authors’ conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship have been shown to influence study outcomes. Objective: We aimed to determine whether author conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship influenced the nature of results and conclusions of systematic reviews focusing on treatment interventions for erectile dysfunction. Materials and methods: We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on erectile dysfunction treatments published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. Authors’ conflicts of interest were collected from the systematic reviews’ disclosure statements. These disclosures were verified using the information provided by the Open Payments, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, and US Patent and Trademark Office databases and from previously published disclosure statements. Results: Our study included 24 systematic reviews authored by 138 authors. Nineteen authors (13.8%) were found to have conflicts of interest (disclosed, undisclosed, or both). No authors completely disclosed all conflicts. Nine reviews (37.5%) contained at least one author with conflicts of interest; of which eight reported narrative results favoring the treatment group, and seven reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 15 (62.5%) reviews without a conflicted author, 11 reported results favoring the treatment group, and 12 reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Discussion: The results and conclusions of systematic reviews for erectile dysfunction treatments did not appear to be influenced by authors who reported conflicts of interest. However, our search algorithm relied on the US-based Open Payments database and a large percentage of reviews in our study were produced by authors with international affiliations. Our study results underscore the difficulties in conducting such analyses. Conclusion: Although we found that undisclosed conflicts of interest (COI) were problematic among systematic reviews of erectile dysfunction treatment, only 14% of authors in our sample possessed them and these COI did not appear to influence the favorability of systematic review outcomes.
AB - Background: Authors’ conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship have been shown to influence study outcomes. Objective: We aimed to determine whether author conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship influenced the nature of results and conclusions of systematic reviews focusing on treatment interventions for erectile dysfunction. Materials and methods: We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on erectile dysfunction treatments published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. Authors’ conflicts of interest were collected from the systematic reviews’ disclosure statements. These disclosures were verified using the information provided by the Open Payments, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, and US Patent and Trademark Office databases and from previously published disclosure statements. Results: Our study included 24 systematic reviews authored by 138 authors. Nineteen authors (13.8%) were found to have conflicts of interest (disclosed, undisclosed, or both). No authors completely disclosed all conflicts. Nine reviews (37.5%) contained at least one author with conflicts of interest; of which eight reported narrative results favoring the treatment group, and seven reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 15 (62.5%) reviews without a conflicted author, 11 reported results favoring the treatment group, and 12 reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Discussion: The results and conclusions of systematic reviews for erectile dysfunction treatments did not appear to be influenced by authors who reported conflicts of interest. However, our search algorithm relied on the US-based Open Payments database and a large percentage of reviews in our study were produced by authors with international affiliations. Our study results underscore the difficulties in conducting such analyses. Conclusion: Although we found that undisclosed conflicts of interest (COI) were problematic among systematic reviews of erectile dysfunction treatment, only 14% of authors in our sample possessed them and these COI did not appear to influence the favorability of systematic review outcomes.
KW - conflicts of interest
KW - erectile dysfunction
KW - industry bias
KW - industry sponsorship
KW - systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85109361954&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/andr.13064
DO - 10.1111/andr.13064
M3 - Article
C2 - 34173351
AN - SCOPUS:85109361954
SN - 2047-2919
VL - 9
SP - 1819
EP - 1827
JO - Andrology
JF - Andrology
IS - 6
ER -