TY - JOUR
T1 - Authorial Conflicts of Interest and Sponsorship in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Psoriasis
AU - Kee, Micah
AU - Greenough, Mary
AU - Anderson, J Michael
AU - Weaver, Michael
AU - Hartwell, Micah
AU - Vassar, Matt
N1 - Funding Information:
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Presidential Mentor-Mentee Research Fellowship Grant.
Funding Information:
The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Vassar reports grant funding from the National Institutes of Health, the United States Office of Research Integrity, and Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology, all outside the bounds of the present work. All other authors have nothing to declare.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2021.
PY - 2021/10
Y1 - 2021/10
N2 - Background: Because industry influence – in the form of study sponsorship and authorial conflicts of interest (COI) – can bias the results and conclusions of systematic reviews, there is a need to understand their role in systematic reviews, particularly for common conditions like psoriasis. Objectives: This study identifies conflicts of interest and industry-author relationships in systematic reviews on psoriasis treatment. Methods: Consistent with our cross-sectional design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on psoriasis treatment. We then performed a subgroup analysis to determine further industry ties within the systemic reviews funded by industry. Results: Our study consisted of 27 systematic reviews and meta-analyses by 146 researchers. We found that 22 (81.5%) of the included systematic reviews contained at least 1 conflicted author. Six authors (of 47; 4.1%) disclosed all COI within the systematic review, 23 (of 47; 15.7%) partially disclosed COI but were also found to have undisclosed COI, and 18 (of 47; 12.3%) did not disclose any COI. Thirteen (of 22; 59.1%) contained narratives that favored the treatment group and 19 (of 22; 86.4%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Importantly, 3 systematic reviews were industry-sponsored. In terms of our subgroup analysis, we found several additional industry ties within the primary studies. Conclusion: Our study calls attention to conflicts of interest, industry sponsorship, and their influence on research outcomes in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Further, we provide examples of how specific industry ties can influence systematic reviews and recommendations for reporting.
AB - Background: Because industry influence – in the form of study sponsorship and authorial conflicts of interest (COI) – can bias the results and conclusions of systematic reviews, there is a need to understand their role in systematic reviews, particularly for common conditions like psoriasis. Objectives: This study identifies conflicts of interest and industry-author relationships in systematic reviews on psoriasis treatment. Methods: Consistent with our cross-sectional design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on psoriasis treatment. We then performed a subgroup analysis to determine further industry ties within the systemic reviews funded by industry. Results: Our study consisted of 27 systematic reviews and meta-analyses by 146 researchers. We found that 22 (81.5%) of the included systematic reviews contained at least 1 conflicted author. Six authors (of 47; 4.1%) disclosed all COI within the systematic review, 23 (of 47; 15.7%) partially disclosed COI but were also found to have undisclosed COI, and 18 (of 47; 12.3%) did not disclose any COI. Thirteen (of 22; 59.1%) contained narratives that favored the treatment group and 19 (of 22; 86.4%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Importantly, 3 systematic reviews were industry-sponsored. In terms of our subgroup analysis, we found several additional industry ties within the primary studies. Conclusion: Our study calls attention to conflicts of interest, industry sponsorship, and their influence on research outcomes in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Further, we provide examples of how specific industry ties can influence systematic reviews and recommendations for reporting.
KW - conflicts of interests
KW - funding bias
KW - industry sponsorship
KW - psoriasis
KW - psoriatic arthritis
KW - systematic reviews
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85107731948&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/24755303211020677
DO - 10.1177/24755303211020677
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85107731948
SN - 2475-5303
VL - 6
SP - 174
EP - 184
JO - Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis
JF - Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis
IS - 4
ER -