ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2012
Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2016Pooled it
- Effects of screening for psychological distress on patient outcomes in cancer: a systematic review.Journal of psychosomatic research · 2013Pooled it
- Oral anticholinergic drugs versus placebo or no treatment for managing overactive bladder syndrome in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Identifying competing interest disclosures in systematic reviews of surgical interventions and devices: a cross-sectional survey.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Article
- 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.Systematic reviews · 2020Article
- Study sponsorship and the nutrition research agenda: analysis of randomized controlled trials included in systematic reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity.Public health nutrition · 2017Review
- Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.Systematic reviews · 2016Review
- Financial Relationships between Organizations That Produce Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Biomedical Industry: A Cross-Sectional Study.PLoS medicine · 2016Article
- Conflicts of interest in nutritional sciences: The forgotten bias in meta-analysis.World journal of methodology · 2015Article
- Potential Conflict of Interest and Bias in the RACGP's Smoking Cessation Guidelines: Are GPs Provided with the Best Advice on Smoking Cessation for their Patients?Public health ethics · 2015Article
- Has industry funding biased studies of the protective effects of alcohol on cardiovascular disease? A preliminary investigation of prospective cohort studies.Drug and alcohol review · 2015Article
- Association of industry sponsorship and positive outcome in randomised controlled trials in general and abdominal surgery: protocol for a systematic review and empirical study.Systematic reviews · 2014Article
- Why the Cochrane risk of bias tool should include funding source as a standard item.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Article
- Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors.Croatian medical journal · 2013Review
- The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane Collaboration.Systematic reviews · 2013Review
- Industry influence in evidence production.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2013Article
- The cycle of bias in health research: a framework and toolbox for critical appraisal training.Accountability in research · 2013Article
- Depression screening and mental health outcomes in children and adolescents: a systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the degree to which Cochrane reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 reported conflicts of interest from included trials and, among reviews that reported this information, where it was located in the review documents.
designCross sectional study. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Systematic reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, with review content classified as up to date in 2008 or later and with results from one or more randomised controlled trials.
resultsOf 151 included Cochrane reviews, 46 (30%, 95% confidence interval 24% to 38%) reported information on the funding sources of included trials, including 30 (20%, 14% to 27%) that reported information on trial funding for all included trials and 16 (11%, 7% to 17%) that reported for some, but not all, trials. Only 16 of the 151 Cochrane reviews (11%, 7% to 17%) provided any information on trial author-industry financial ties or trial author-industry employment. Information on trial funding and trial author-industry ties was reported in one to seven locations within each review, with no consistent reporting location observed.
conclusionsMost Cochrane reviews of drug trials published in 2010 did not provide information on trial funding sources or trial author-industry financial ties or employment. When this information was reported, location of reporting was inconsistent across reviews.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.