Prisma

Gerlach, Eckard; Große, Peter; Gerstenhauer, Eike

doi:10.1007/978-3-663-12297-5_42

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the current PRISMA checklist requires authors to report sources of funding and the role of sponsors in the manuscript, there is no instruction for the disclosure of COI. 11 PRISMA should include disclosure of COI to their checklist to verify that systematic review authors are completely transparent regarding financial relationships that may affect the study. Given the role these organizations play in the quality of publications, especially systematic reviews, it is essential that their guidelines ensure complete financial transparency of all authors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Systematic Review Authors Investigating Interventions for Achilles Tendon Ruptures

Cole

Hillman

Corcoran

et al. 2021

Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the effects of undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in Achilles tendon rupture repair–focused systematic reviews. Methods: Following a cross-sectional study design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for Achilles tendon rupture repair systematic reviews. We performed screening and data extraction in a blind, triplicate fashion. Each systematic review was evaluated on the individual characteristics of the study, presence of undisclosed and disclosed conflicts of interest, favorability of results and conclusions, and the relationship between conflicts of interest and the favorability of results and conclusions. Results: Our search produced 172 total systematic reviews pertaining to Achilles tendon rupture repair; of those, only 12 were included in our study. Undisclosed conflicts of interest were found in half (6/12) of the included reviews. However, no significant association was found between conflict of interest and the favorability of results and conclusions. Conclusion: Undisclosed conflicts of interests were discovered in a large percentage of our sample. This lack of disclosure did not appear to increase the likelihood of the systematic review results or conclusions reporting favorability of the intervention being investigated. Level of Evidence: Level II.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Systematic Review Authors Investigating Interventions for Achilles Tendon Ruptures

Cole

Hillman

Corcoran

et al. 2021

Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have provided study materials and protocol on Open Science Framework to increase the transparency and reproducibility of our results. 21 While drafting this paper, we referred to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 22 and Murad and Wang's guidelines for metaepidemiological studies. 23 Search strategy Medline (Ovid) was searched from January 2016 to 25 April 2020 to locate systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on treatments of addiction disorders using the search strategy provided in the online protocol.…”

Section: Methods Transparency Reproducibility and Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlation analysis of financial conflicts of interest and favourability of results or conclusions in addiction medicine systematic reviews and meta-analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo quantify conflicts of interest, assess the accuracy of authors self-reporting them, and examine the association between conflicts of interest and favourability of results and discussions in addiction medicine systematic reviews.DesignA search was performed on Medline (Ovid) from January 2016 to 25 April 2020 to locate systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on treatments of addiction disorders using a systematic search strategy. Data were extracted from each systematic review, including conflict of interest statements, authorship characteristics and the favourability of the results/conclusion sections. A search algorithm was used to identify any undisclosed conflicts of interest on the Open Payments Database (Dollars for Docs), Dollars for Profs, Google Patents/United States Patent and Trade Office, and prior conflict of interest statements in other published works from these authors.ResultsThe search identified 127 systematic reviews, representing 665 unique authors. Of the 127 studies, 81 reported no authors with conflicts of interest, 28 with 1 or more conflict, and 18 had no conflict of interest statement. Additional non-disclosed conflicts of interest were found for 34 authors. There were 69 reviews that had at least one author with a conflict of interest. Of the 69 reviews, 14 (20.3%) reported favourable results and 26 (37.7%) reported favourable discussion/conclusions with no statistically significant association. A subanalysis was performed on publications with only US authors (51) with 35 (68.9%) having at least 1 conflict of interest. US authored studies that had a conflict of interest favoured the results (p = <0.001) and discussion/conclusion (p = 0.018) more often.ConclusionAlthough multiple undisclosed financial conflicts of interest were found, there was no correlation with the favourability of the results or discussion/conclusions across all addiction medicine systematic reviews. Further research needs to be done on US-based publications and encourage disclosure systems worldwide to provide more accurate reporting.

show abstract

Prisma

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Systematic Review Authors Investigating Interventions for Achilles Tendon Ruptures

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Systematic Review Authors Investigating Interventions for Achilles Tendon Ruptures

Correlation analysis of financial conflicts of interest and favourability of results or conclusions in addiction medicine systematic reviews and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About