ArticleThe Journal of nervous and mental disease2013
Disclosures of conflicts of interest in psychiatric review articles.
Article in The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To characterize disclosures of conflicts of interest in review articles in psychiatry, we identified 285 reviews from 10 high-impact journals in psychiatry and 2 in general medicine. Disclosures were reliably coded as biotechnology/pharmaceutical/other material interests, nonprofit/government, communication companies, or other. The authors in both types of journals frequently reported industry ties. However, the reviews in the psychiatric journals were significantly less likely to include industry-related disclosures (32% of the reviews; 18% of the authors) compared with the general medical journals (64% of the articles; 40% of the authors). The most common types of industry-related disclosures were for consulting, research support, and speaking fees. Disclosures seemed to be of limited utility in helping readers assess possible biases because the nature and the extent of the relationships being disclosed were often unclear. Efforts to screen out authors with significant financial relationships pertaining to the topic under review may be more effective than are disclosures in protecting the integrity of the medical literature.
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.