Abstract
Introduction: Because of the implications systematic reviews have on health policy and clinical practice, we chose to investigate the effect potential financial biases have on erectile dysfunction systematic reviews. Our primary objective was to evaluate the presence of authorship conflicts of interest among systematic reviews of erectile dysfuction treatments and their associations with the narrative outcomes reported within these studies.
Methods: A search strategy was conducted using MEDLINE and Embase databases. Inclusion criteria to our study included that the study must cover ED treatment in a head-to-head comparison or to placebo/standard of care and published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. We extracted treatment intervention, author affiliation, funding sources, and COI statements. Further, we assessed whether the narrative results and conclusions favored the treatment group. We identified undisclosed COI through 3 databases— the Open Payments database, Dollars for Profs, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. We evaluated the frequency of authorship COI among systematic reviews and conducted fisher’s exact tests to evaluate the relationship between COI and the systematic review’s favorability of results and discussion.
Results: A total of 24 systematic reviews met the final inclusion criteria. The 24 included studies were conducted by 138 authors, among whom 19 were found to have a COI (13.8%), despite only 3 being included in the systematic review’s disclosure statement. Although these 3 authors were found to have additional undisclosed COI. The 19 authors with COI were spread among 9 of the 24 (37.5%) systematic reviews, while only 2 reviews disclosed any COI. Of the 9 systematic reviews with COIs among their authors, 8 (88.9%) reported narrative results favoring the treatment group, and 7 (77.8%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. However, there were no statistically significant associations between author COI and systematic review results and conclusions.
Conclusion: We found that undisclosed COIs are common among systematic review authors for the treatment of ED. Undisclosed COIs have the potential to influence the reporting of research outcomes which can influence health professionals in their clinical decision-making. COI policy revisions should be implemented to improve transparency regarding financial relationships in future research.
Funding: N/A
Methods: A search strategy was conducted using MEDLINE and Embase databases. Inclusion criteria to our study included that the study must cover ED treatment in a head-to-head comparison or to placebo/standard of care and published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. We extracted treatment intervention, author affiliation, funding sources, and COI statements. Further, we assessed whether the narrative results and conclusions favored the treatment group. We identified undisclosed COI through 3 databases— the Open Payments database, Dollars for Profs, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. We evaluated the frequency of authorship COI among systematic reviews and conducted fisher’s exact tests to evaluate the relationship between COI and the systematic review’s favorability of results and discussion.
Results: A total of 24 systematic reviews met the final inclusion criteria. The 24 included studies were conducted by 138 authors, among whom 19 were found to have a COI (13.8%), despite only 3 being included in the systematic review’s disclosure statement. Although these 3 authors were found to have additional undisclosed COI. The 19 authors with COI were spread among 9 of the 24 (37.5%) systematic reviews, while only 2 reviews disclosed any COI. Of the 9 systematic reviews with COIs among their authors, 8 (88.9%) reported narrative results favoring the treatment group, and 7 (77.8%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. However, there were no statistically significant associations between author COI and systematic review results and conclusions.
Conclusion: We found that undisclosed COIs are common among systematic review authors for the treatment of ED. Undisclosed COIs have the potential to influence the reporting of research outcomes which can influence health professionals in their clinical decision-making. COI policy revisions should be implemented to improve transparency regarding financial relationships in future research.
Funding: N/A
| Original language | American English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 209 |
| State | Published - 2 Oct 2021 |
| Event | Annual Meeting of the South Central Section of the AUA - Scottsdale, Arizona Duration: 29 Sep 2021 → 2 Oct 2021 |
Conference
| Conference | Annual Meeting of the South Central Section of the AUA |
|---|---|
| City | Scottsdale, Arizona |
| Period | 29/09/21 → 2/10/21 |