首页> 外文期刊>Systematic Reviews >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
【24h】

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

机译:报告高影响医学期刊发表的药物试验荟萃分析的财务冲突:2017年至2018年和2009年的结果比较

获取原文
           

摘要

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. 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. 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. A protocol was uploaded to the Open Science Framework prior to initiating the study. https://osf.io/8xt5p/ 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. 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.
机译:先前的研究发现,2009年高影响期刊发表的29个(6.9%)的荟萃分析报告包括毒品试验的资金来源,没有报告审判作者的财务利益冲突(FCOIS)或行业就业。如果报告自2009年以来,则尚不清楚。我们的目标是(1)在高影响期刊发表的荟萃分析中调查制药行业资金和作者行业的课程资金和作者行业的范围和来自所含有药物试验的程度。 (2)与2009年的结果进行比较。我们搜索了Pubmed(2018年1月至2018年1月),用于系统性评论,包括≥2种可随机对照试验(RCT)的专利药物的分析。我们包括2017年1月公布的3个Meta-Analys 2018年4月4日高影响的一般医学期刊,来自5种特种地区的高影响的期刊,以及在上一项研究中的系统评价的Cochrane数据库。在29个荟萃分析中,第29条第13条(44.8%)报告了包括试验的资金来源,而2009年的29例(6.9%),差异为37.9%(95%置信区间,15.7至56.3%);这包括来自一般医学期刊的11个(63.6%),其中3名(20.0%)来自特种医学期刊,共有3名(100%)Cochrane评论。只有29个Meta-Analys(6.9%)报告的审判作者FCoIS,没有报告的审判作者行业就业。在启动研究之前,将协议上传到开放科学框架。 https://osf.io/8xt5p/我们只检查了从选定的高碰撞期刊的相对少量的元分析,并与早期的时间段与类似的小样本进行比较。报告毒品审判赞助和作者FCoIS在高影响期期刊上发表的荟萃分析中提高了2009年增加,但仍然是次优。应根据期刊调整并强制提交报告,改善报告的报告中所述的审计资金报告标准。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号