Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009

Abstract

Background: A previous study found that 2 of 29 (6.9%) meta-analyses published in high-impact journals in 2009 reported included drug trials' funding sources, and none reported trial authors' financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) or industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved since 2009. Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which pharmaceutical industry funding and author-industry FCOIs and employment from included drug trials are reported in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals and (2) compare current reporting with results from 2009. Methods:We searched PubMed (January 2017-October 2018) for systematic reviews with meta-analyses including ≥ 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patented drugs. We included 3 meta-analyses published January 2017-October 2018 from each of 4 high-impact general medicine journals, high-impact journals from 5 specialty areas, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as in the previous study.Results: Among 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 13 of 29 (44.8%) reported the funding source of included trials compared to 2 of 29 (6.9%) in 2009, a difference of 37.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.7 to 56.3%); this included 7 of 11 (63.6%) from general medicine journals, 3 of 15 (20.0%) from specialty medicine journals, and 3 of 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews. Only 2 of 29 meta-analyses (6.9%) reported trial author FCOIs, and none reported trial author-industry employment. Protocol Publication: A protocol was uploaded to the Open Science Framework prior to initiating the study. https:// osf.io/8xt5p/ Limitations: We examined only a relatively small number of meta-analyses from selected high-impact journals and compared results to a similarly small sample from an earlier time period.Conclusions: Reporting of drug trial sponsorship and author FCOIs in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals has increased since 2009 but is still suboptimal. Standards on reporting of trial funding described in the forthcoming revised PRISMA statement should be adapted and enforced by journals to improve reporting.

Inexpensive Systemic Inflammatory Biomarkers in Ovarian Cancer: An Umbrella Systematic Review of 17 Prognostic Meta-Analyses

“…Funding sources and conflicts of interest may affect and compromise the conclusions of the MAs and their quality. Financial and non-financial reporting of conflicts of interest in MAs is still suboptimal (48)(49)(50). However, given the observational nature of the included non-industry sponsored studies in the MAs of our umbrella review, the risk of this concern is limited.…”

The Impact of Drug Trials With Financial Conflict of Interests on the Meta-analyses: A Meta-epidemiological Study

“…Eligibility Criteria Drugs were broadly defined as chemical substances and biologicals (including vaccines), but not nutritional supplements (eg, vitamins, probiotics), fluids, antiseptics, or medical devices without a drug component. 29 Studies were considered to be eligible if they were MAs in which drug trials were evaluated that had: (a) at least one analyzed drug that was authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration at the time of publication; (b) a combination of drug and nondrug interventions (eg, cognitive therapy, psychotherapy); (c) synthesized results from ≥2 trials; (d) evaluated the effectiveness or adverse events of a drug or class of drugs. MAs in which only different dosages, the dosing interval, or method of administration were assessed, were excluded from the study.…”

Promoting integrity in scholarly research and its publication: International Endodontic Journal policy on reporting conflicts of interest, funding and acknowledgements within manuscripts submitted for publication

“…In an attempt to ensure the transparency and quality of the papers they publish, several leading medical and dental journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA) and the International Endodontic Journal , have adopted a policy of declaring potential sources of conflicts of interest (Fontanarosa & Bauchner, 2017). The reporting of author–industry financial ties in clinical trials published in high‐impact peer‐reviewed medical journals has increased from 7% in 2010 to 44% in 2016–2018 (Benea et al, 2020). On the other hand, Faggion et al (2020) reported that potential conflicts of interest are under‐reported in dental journals.…”