The Impact of Financial Conflict of Interest on Surgical Research: An Observational Study of Published Manuscripts

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

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.

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 83%

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

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

“…Con ict of interest in biomedical research has been associated with positive conclusion and suppression of negative results [19,20,[37][38][39]. However, we did not nd the association between positive conclusion and COI disclosure in our study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 83%

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

et al. 2020

Preprint

Background: Conflict of interest (COI) is an important source of bias in research and disclosure is the most frequent strategy to manage COI. Considering the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) and the prevalence of COI is varying among different research fields, we conducted a survey to identify the range of conflict of interest in SRs assessing surgical intervention and devices, and explored the association between COI disclosure and conclusion.Methods: We retrieved SRs of surgical interventions and devices published in 2017 via PubMed. Information regarding general characteristics, funding source and COI disclosure were extracted. We conducted descriptive analyses of study characteristics of included systematic reviews. The difference between groups in the authors’ conclusions were compared using the Chi-square test. Results were expressed as odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval.Results: 155 SRs were finally identified in 2017, more than half of SRs (58.7%) reported their funding source and 94.2% reported authors’ COI disclosure. Among 146 SRs that stated COI disclosures, only 35 (22.6%) SRs declared at least one author had a COI. More than 40 terms were used to describe COI. Cochrane SRs were more likely to provide a detail description of COI comparing with those in non-CSR (48.0% versus 25.4%, P=0,023). No association between a positive conclusion and COI disclosure was found (P=0.484, OR=0.43, 95%CI: 0.08, 2.16). In the subgroup analyses, SRs stating no COI disclosure were more likely to report positive conclusion than those stating at least one type of COI, but the difference is not significantly different (P=0.406, OR=1.38, 95%CI: 0.64, 2.98)Conclusion: A high rate of COI disclosure without any detailed information. The identification and statement of COI, particularly nonfinancial interests, are still needed to be improved. Some efficient and effective methods/tools for identifying, quantifying, and minimizing potential COI in systematic reviews are necessary.

“…Competing interest in biomedical research has often been associated with a positive conclusion with suppression of negative results [19,20,[37][38][39]. However, we did not nd the association between positive conclusion and competing interest disclosure in our study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 82%

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

et al. 2020

Preprint

Background: 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 interest in different research fields, we conducted a survey to identify the range of competing interest in SRs assessing surgical intervention or devices and explored the association between competing interest disclosure and authors’ conclusion. Methods: We retrieved SRs of surgical interventions and devices published in 2017 via PubMed. Information regarding general characteristics, funding source, and competing interest disclosure 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: 155 SRs published in 2017 were included in the study. More than half of the SRs (58.7%) reported their funding source and 94.2% reported authors’ competing interest disclosure. 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 interest compared to those in non-CSRs (48.0% versus 25.4%, P=0,023). No association between a positive conclusion and competing interest disclosure 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 conclusion 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 disclosure 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 interest in systematic reviews remains valuable.