首页> 外文期刊>JMIR Dermatology >Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Investigating Interventions for Melanoma: Cross-sectional Literature Study
【24h】

Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Investigating Interventions for Melanoma: Cross-sectional Literature Study

机译:系统评价作者与Meta分析的利益冲突调查黑色素瘤的疗效:横截面文学研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Previous studies have highlighted the potential influence that industry relationships may have on the outcomes of medical research. Objective We aimed to determine the prevalence of author conflicts of interest (COIs) in systematic reviews focusing on melanoma interventions, as well as to determine whether the presence of these COIs were associated with an increased likelihood of reporting favorable results and conclusions. Methods This cross-sectional study included systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses focusing on interventions for melanoma. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for eligible systematic reviews published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. COI disclosures were cross-referenced with information from the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) Open Payments database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and previously published COI disclosure statements. Results were quantified using descriptive statistics, and relationships were evaluated by Fisher exact tests. Results Of the 23 systematic reviews included in our sample, 12 (52%) had at least one author with a COI. Of these 12 reviews, 7 (58%) reported narrative results favoring the treatment group and 9 (75%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 11 systematic reviews without a conflicted author, 4 (36%) reported results favoring the treatment group and 5 (45%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. We found no significant association between the presence of author COIs and the favorability of results (P=.53) or conclusions (P=.15). Conclusions Author COIs did not appear to influence the outcomes of systematic reviews regarding melanoma interventions. Clinicians and other readers of dermatology literature should be cognizant of the influence that industry may have on the nature of reported outcomes, including those from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
机译:背景技术以前的研究突出了行业关系可能对医学研究结果产生的潜在影响。目标我们旨在确定作者利益冲突(CoIS)的普遍存在的系统性评论,重点是黑色素瘤干预的,以及确定这些CoIS是否存在与报告有利结果和结论的可能性增加有关。方法该横截面研究包括有或没有荟萃分析的系统评论,重点是黑色素瘤的干预措施。我们搜索了Medline并Embase于2016年9月1日至6月2日在2020年6月2日期间发布的符合条件的系统评论。Coi披露与来自CMS的信息(Medicare&Medicaider服务中心)的信息交叉参考,为谷歌开放付款数据库,美元专利,美国专利和商标局及以前发表过COI披露陈述。结果使用描述性统计量化量化,并且通过Fisher精确测试评估了关系。我们样本中包含的23个系统评论的结果,12(52%)至少有一个作者提供了COI。在这12条评论中,7(58%)报告的叙事结果有利于治疗组和9(75%)报告的结论,最有利于治疗组。在没有冲突作者的11个系统评论中,4名(36%)报告的结果有利于治疗组和5(45%)报告的结论,最有利于治疗组。我们发现作者Cois的存在与结果的有利性(P = .53)或结论之间没有显着关联(P = .15)。结论作者Cois似乎没有影响关于黑色素瘤干预的系统评价的结果。临床医生和其他皮肤科文学的读者应该认识到行业可能对报告结果的性质,包括来自系统评价和荟萃分析的影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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