Effect of funding source on reporting bias in studies of intravitreal anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for retinal vein occlusion

Venincasa, Michael J.; Kuriyan, Ajay E.; Sridhar, Jayanth

doi:10.1111/aos.13917

Cited by 3 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, our group published a study using a very similar methodology examining the effect of funding source on reporting bias in studies of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy for retinal vein occlusion. 10 Similar to the present study, rates of biased abstract reporting were low and were unaffected by funding source, reflecting no differences despite the increased risk profile of intraocular corticosteroids compared to intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy. Finally, the rigorousness of the peer-reviewed process between 2009 and 2019 may partly explain the difference in results.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“… 9 Our group performed a similar analysis of randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy for retinal vein occlusion published in high-impact journals and did not find industry-sponsorship to be associated with an increased rate of reporting bias. 10 The focus on high-impact journals allowed the authors to capture journals that were most likely to be referred to by physicians, and the results of this study were reassuring given the rapid adoption of anti-VEGF therapy for a number of ocular conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Our methods of study evaluation and data extraction have been previously described. 10 Study quality was assessed with the scoring scale utilized by Alasbali et al (2009) and is outlined in Table 1 . 9 Correspondence between significance of the main outcome measure result and abstract conclusion was assessed by surveying whether the wording of the abstract conclusion matched the statistical analysis of the results as they pertained to the main outcome measure(s).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Analysis of Funding Source and Spin in the Reporting of Studies of Intravitreal Corticosteroid Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review

Nithianandan¹,

Kuriyan²,

Venincasa³

et al. 2020

OPTH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review examined the relationship between industry funding and the presence of spin in high-impact studies evaluating intravitreal corticosteroid therapy for diabetic macular edema. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched from inception through July 16, 2018, for randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses investigating the treatment of patients with diabetic macular edema using intravitreal corticosteroid therapy. Only studies published in English journals with an impact factor greater than 2 as per the Clarivate Analytics 2017 Journal Citation Report were included. The authors independently assessed study quality, funding source and the presence of reporting bias using a standardized datasheet. Results: Title and abstract screening were completed on 7158 unique hits and full-text review yielded 44 included studies. Overall, there was correspondence between the wording of abstract conclusions and study results in 41/44 (93%) articles. Correspondence between abstract conclusions and significance of main outcome was present in 14/14 (100%) industryfunded and 27/30 (90%) nonindustry-funded studies. The odds ratio of industry funding being associated with noncorrespondence was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.01-5.61, p=0.54). The most common reason for noncorrespondence was the failure to mention rates of steroid-related intraocular pressure elevation. Conclusion: The results of this systematic review indicate that biased abstract outcome reporting is rare in published randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses of intravitreal corticosteroid therapy for diabetic macular edema. Biased reporting was not associated with the presence of industry funding or a conflict of interest.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analysis of Funding Source and Spin in the Reporting of Studies of Intravitreal Corticosteroid Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review

Nithianandan¹,

Kuriyan²,

Venincasa³

et al. 2020

OPTH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 A recent study by our group went further by examining the connection between industry funding and reporting bias in antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) studies, but only included RCTs and meta-analyses published in journals with impact factors of 2 or more. 6 Our group's previous study evaluated anti-VEGF therapies, which unlike ocriplasmin, are drugs that have been extensively studied and found to be extremely efficacious in the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusions. 6 For a drug as therapeutically successful as anti-VEGF agents, it may be less likely to find discordance between study results and abstract conclusions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 Our group's previous study evaluated anti-VEGF therapies, which unlike ocriplasmin, are drugs that have been extensively studied and found to be extremely efficacious in the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusions. 6 For a drug as therapeutically successful as anti-VEGF agents, it may be less likely to find discordance between study results and abstract conclusions. 6 To the authors' knowledge, there are no studies investigating potential spin in newer, less established drugs that physicians may not be familiar with.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Funding Source on “Spin” in Studies of Ocriplasmin Therapy for Vitreomacular Traction and Macular Hole

Hubschman¹,

Venincasa²,

Kuriyan³

et al. 2020

OPTH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To examine the relationship between industry funding and "spin" in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses investigating use of ocriplasmin for patients with vitreomacular traction (VMT) and macular hole (MH). Methods: In this study, we examined all PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE RCTs and metaanalyses published in journals with impact factor ≥2 investigating effectiveness of ocriplasmin use for VMT and MH. The main outcome measure was correspondence between the studies' main statistical outcome and their abstract conclusion wording. Each article was reviewed by three independent observers and was evaluated for source of funding, industry co-authorship, study methodology, statistical significance of main outcome measure, correspondence between results of main outcome measure and abstract conclusion, and journal impact factor. Funding was determined by public disclosure. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Results: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, of which 11 were industry funded and 1 was non-industry funded; 11 (91.67%) showed correspondence between outcome and abstract conclusion, without difference between industry-funded and non-industry funded publications or between publications in journals with high impact factor (≥3) versus low impact factor (≥2 and <3). Conclusion:In RCTs and meta-analyses of ocriplasmin for VMT and MH, our results suggest that neither industry funding nor journal impact factor affected the rate of "spin" in study conclusions. This study helps physicians understand what challenges they face when learning about a newer, less-established drug.

show abstract

The association between research funding status and clinical research papers’ citation impact in Japan: A cross-sectional bibliometric study

Morisawa

Nishizaki²,

Devos³

et al. 2022

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionStudies have not sufficiently clarified the differences in citation impact between funded and non-funded clinical research papers. Hence, this study seeks to evaluate the relation between research funding status and clinical research papers’ citation impact in different research fields using multiple evaluation indices.MethodsIn this cross-sectional bibliometric study, clinical research papers published by core clinical research hospitals in Japan were compared retrospectively in terms of times cited (TC), category normalized citation impact (CNCI), citation percentile (CP), journal impact factor (JIF), the Software to Identify, Manage, and Analyze Scientific Publications (SIGAPS) category, and whether they were the funded clinical research. The association between research funding status or the SIGAPS category and CNCI ≥ 2 was analyzed using logistic regression analysis.Results11 core clinical research hospitals published 553 clinical research papers, of which 120 were non-funded and 433 were funded (public institution-funded and industry-funded). The study found that funded clinical research papers (public institution-funded and industry-funded) had significantly higher TC, CNCI, CP, and JIF than non-funded ones [TC: 8 (3–17) vs. 14 (8–31), p < 0.001; CNCI: 0.53 (0.19–0.97) vs. 0.87 (0.45–1.85), p < 0.001; CP: 51.9 (24.48–70.42) vs. 66.7 (40.53–88.01), p < 0.001; JIF: 2.59 (1.90–3.84) vs. 2.93 (2.09–4.20) p = 0.008], while the proportion of A or B rank clinical research papers of the SIGAPS category was not significantly different between the two groups (30.0 vs. 34.9%, p = 0.318). In the logistic regression analysis, having a CNCI ≥ 2 was significantly associated with research funding (public institution-funded and industry-funded) and publication in A or B rank journals of the SIGAPS category [research funding: Estimate 2.169, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.153–4.083, p = 0.016; SIGAPS category A/B: Estimate 6.126, 95% CI 3.889–9.651, p < 0.001].ConclusionAnalysis via multiple indicators including CNCI and the SIGAPS category, which allows for a comparison of the papers’ citation impact in different research fields, found a positive relation between research funding status and the citation impact of clinical research papers.

show abstract

Effect of funding source on reporting bias in studies of intravitreal anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for retinal vein occlusion

Abstract: In high-quality studies of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy for RVO, neither industry funding nor journal impact factor affected the rate of outcome reporting bias.

Cited by 3 publications

References 55 publications

<p>Analysis of Funding Source and Spin in the Reporting of Studies of Intravitreal Corticosteroid Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review</p>

<p>Analysis of Funding Source and Spin in the Reporting of Studies of Intravitreal Corticosteroid Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review</p>

<p>Effect of Funding Source on “Spin” in Studies of Ocriplasmin Therapy for Vitreomacular Traction and Macular Hole</p>

The association between research funding status and clinical research papers’ citation impact in Japan: A cross-sectional bibliometric study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About