Identifying competing interest disclosures in systematic reviews of surgical interventions and devices: a cross-sectional survey

Abstract

Background A competing interest is an important source of bias in research and disclosure is frequently employed as a strategy to manage it. Considering the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) and the varying prevalence of competing interests in different research fields, we conducted a survey to identify the range of competing interests in SRs assessing surgical interventions or devices and explored the association between the competing interest disclosures and authors’ conclusions. Methods We retrieved SRs of surgical interventions and devices published in 2017 via PubMed. Information regarding general characteristics, funding sources, and competing interest disclosures were extracted. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the studies’ characteristics and compared them between Cochrane SRs (CSRs) and non-Cochrane SRs using the Chi-square test. Results were expressed as odds ratio and their 95% confidence interval. Results One hundred fifty-five SRs published in 2017 were included in the study. More than half of the SRs (58.7%) reported their funding sources and 94.2% reported authors’ competing interest disclosures. Among 146 SRs that stated competing interest disclosures, only 35 (22.6%) SRs declared at least one author had a competing interest. More than 40 terms were used to describe competing interests. Cochrane SRs (CSRs) were more likely to provide a detailed description of competing interests compared to those in non-CSRs (48.0% versus 25.4%, P = 0.023). No association between positive conclusions and competing interest disclosures was found (P = 0.484, OR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.08, 2.16). In the subgroup analyses, SRs stating no competing interest disclosure were more likely to report positive conclusions than those stating at least one type of competing interest, but the difference is not significantly different (P = 0.406, OR = 1.38, 95%CI: 0.64, 2.98). Conclusion In surgical SRs, there is a high percentage of competing interest disclosures but without detailed information. The identification and statement of competing interests with a detailed description, particularly the non-financial ones, needs improvement. Some efficient and effective methods/tools for identifying, quantifying, and minimizing potential competing interests in systematic reviews remains valuable.

Publication practices of sub-Saharan African Cochrane authors: a bibliometric study

“…Previous literature suggests that non-Cochrane systematic reviews may be preferred if the authors lacked knowledge of Cochrane processes and, the time required to complete a Cochrane review, or sought to publish in a journal more directly relevant to the topic of interest. 8 While the Cochrane editorial processes may lead to higher quality products, 9 10 more conservative results, 11 and more transparent declaration of conflicts of interest, 12 reviews authors may be working with shorter timelines (eg, as expected from funders or decision-makers) and thus seek alternative journals. Furthermore, the downward trend in publication of Cochrane reviews may be a reflection of other longstanding issues with research output in collaborative health research, including limited opportunities with regards to research funding; academic resources; stronger, deeper and wider research networks; and editorial roles for authors from low-income countries.…”

Appraising systematic reviews: a comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability

“…For researchers, reviewers, and editors, the recognition and declaration of competing interests, particularly nonfinancial interests, continues to be difficult. To identify and reduce potential conflicting interests in systematic reviews, the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) must continue to create more effective and efficient tools (Yu et al, 2020 ).…”

Evaluation of the Smart City and Analysis of Its Spatial–Temporal Characteristics in China: A Case Study of 26 Cities in the Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration

“…The YRDUA consists of nine prefecture-level cities in Jiangsu Province (Changzhou, Yancheng, Wuxi, Suzhou, Taizhou, Nantong, Yangzhou, Nanjing, and Zhenjiang), eight prefecture-level cities in Zhejiang Province (Ningbo, Zhoushan, Hangzhou, Shaoxing, Jiaxing, Jinhua, Taizhou, and Huzhou), eight prefecture-level cities in Anhui Province (Chizhou, Anqing, Chuzhou, Tongling, Ma'anshan, Wuhu, Hefei, and Xuancheng), and Shanghai, as shown in Figure 2. The SCs in the YRDUA were selected as typical cases for the following reasons: First of all, the urban agglomeration of the YRDUA boasts the highest level of urbanization in China, with an average urbanization rate of 67.38% [45]. Moreover, the progress and development of cities in the YRDUA serve as critical engines of China's social and economic advancement.…”

“…To ensure the veracity and dependability of the research findings, the data utilized in this study were sourced exclusively from the China City Statistical Yearbook 2017-2020, The SCs in the YRDUA were selected as typical cases for the following reasons: First of all, the urban agglomeration of the YRDUA boasts the highest level of urbanization in China, with an average urbanization rate of 67.38% [45]. Moreover, the progress and development of cities in the YRDUA serve as critical engines of China's social and economic advancement.…”