Abstract
Background: Conflicts of interest (COI) among studies, through sponsorship or various associations with authors, can lead to biased results and conclusions. The effects of affiliations between industries and systematic reviews warrant the need for further exploration, specifically for common addiction disorders such as opioid use disorder. This study aims to explore the relationship between conflicts of interest and industry-author associations in systematic reviews on opioid use disorder.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analysis related to opioid use disorder treatment. All data extraction was performed in a masked duplicate fashion. Fifteen study characteristics were extracted for each systematic review. We searched for undisclosed conflicts of interest for each systematic review author in 3 databases –– the CMS Open Payments database, Dollars for Profs, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).1,2,3 A subgroup analysis was performed to determine additional industry connections within systematic reviews sponsored by industry.
Results: Our study consisted of 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses with 81 authors. We found that 25 (of 81, 30.9%) authors had some form of COI, and 22 (of 25, 88.0%) authors had an undisclosed COI. However, there was no significant association between COI and favorability of results and conclusions. There was additionally no significant association between sponsorship and favorability of results and conclusions. Notably, two systematic reviews (of 17; 11.76%) were industry-sponsored. Within the two industry-sponsored reviews, our subgroup analysis determined additional industry affiliations among primary studies.
Conclusion: Despite non-significant results, our study emphasizes the influence and relationships between conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Further, we provided an expansion on the subject and recommendations for improving reporting.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analysis related to opioid use disorder treatment. All data extraction was performed in a masked duplicate fashion. Fifteen study characteristics were extracted for each systematic review. We searched for undisclosed conflicts of interest for each systematic review author in 3 databases –– the CMS Open Payments database, Dollars for Profs, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).1,2,3 A subgroup analysis was performed to determine additional industry connections within systematic reviews sponsored by industry.
Results: Our study consisted of 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses with 81 authors. We found that 25 (of 81, 30.9%) authors had some form of COI, and 22 (of 25, 88.0%) authors had an undisclosed COI. However, there was no significant association between COI and favorability of results and conclusions. There was additionally no significant association between sponsorship and favorability of results and conclusions. Notably, two systematic reviews (of 17; 11.76%) were industry-sponsored. Within the two industry-sponsored reviews, our subgroup analysis determined additional industry affiliations among primary studies.
Conclusion: Despite non-significant results, our study emphasizes the influence and relationships between conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Further, we provided an expansion on the subject and recommendations for improving reporting.
| Original language | American English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 45 |
| State | Published - 22 Feb 2021 |
| Event | Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Research Days 2021: Poster presentation - Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Campus, Tulsa, United States Duration: 22 Feb 2021 → 26 Feb 2021 |
Conference
| Conference | Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Research Days 2021 |
|---|---|
| Country/Territory | United States |
| City | Tulsa |
| Period | 22/02/21 → 26/02/21 |
Keywords
- Opioids
- Opioid use disorder
- Conflicts of interests
- Funding Bias
- Industry Sponsorship