Abstract
Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that authors’ conflict of interest can influence outcomes of systematic reviews (SRs). Therefore, we aimed to determine whether the presence of one of more conflicts was associated with more favorable results and conclusions in systematic reviews of glaucoma interventions.
Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were searched for systematic reviews of glaucoma treatments published between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2020. Author conflicts of interest were located using multiple databases (e.g., CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO) and previously published disclosure statements. Study sponsorship was determined using each review’s funding disclosure statement.
Results: Our study included 26 systematic reviews conducted by 108 authors. Of these reviews, nine (34.6%) were conducted by at least one author with an undisclosed conflict of interest. Of those nine, three (33.3%) reported results favoring the treatment group, and five (55.6%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 17 systematic reviews with no conflicted authors, one (5.9%) reported results favoring the treatment group, and two (11.8%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Fisher’s exact tests demonstrated that these differences held a statistically significant association between author conflicts and the favorability of the reviews’ conclusions towards the treatment group (P = 0.04).
Conclusions: We found that systematic reviews conducted by one or more authors with conflicts of interest were more likely than those with no conflicted authors to draw favorable conclusions about the investigated intervention.
Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were searched for systematic reviews of glaucoma treatments published between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2020. Author conflicts of interest were located using multiple databases (e.g., CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO) and previously published disclosure statements. Study sponsorship was determined using each review’s funding disclosure statement.
Results: Our study included 26 systematic reviews conducted by 108 authors. Of these reviews, nine (34.6%) were conducted by at least one author with an undisclosed conflict of interest. Of those nine, three (33.3%) reported results favoring the treatment group, and five (55.6%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 17 systematic reviews with no conflicted authors, one (5.9%) reported results favoring the treatment group, and two (11.8%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Fisher’s exact tests demonstrated that these differences held a statistically significant association between author conflicts and the favorability of the reviews’ conclusions towards the treatment group (P = 0.04).
Conclusions: We found that systematic reviews conducted by one or more authors with conflicts of interest were more likely than those with no conflicted authors to draw favorable conclusions about the investigated intervention.
| Original language | American English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 107 |
| 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
- Glaucoma
- Systematic Reviews
- Conflict of Interest
- Industry Sponsorship