SynthesisIntensive care medicine2018
Time trends in the reporting of conflicts of interest, funding and affiliation with industry in intensive care research: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Intensive care medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Conflicts of Interest in Research and Clinical Practice].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2022Review
- Reporting of adverse events, conflict of interest and funding in randomised controlled trials of antibiotics: a secondary analysis.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Are critical care authors publication dealers?Intensive care medicine · 2019Article
- Focus on ethics of admission and discharge policies and conflicts of interest.Intensive care medicine · 2019Article
- Reporting of conflicts of interest and of sponsorship of guidelines in anaesthesiology. A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeConflict of interest (COI) may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, a researcher's judgment or integrity in conducting or reporting research. We sought to assess time trends of COI and funding statement reporting in the critical care literature.
methodsPubMed was searched by using Medical Subject Headings and the appropriate corresponding keywords: "INTENSIVE CARE UNIT" or "ICU" as a major topic. Four years in a 15-year time period (2001-2016) were arbitrarily chosen and one study month was randomly selected for each study period. Studies published during the selected months were included in the analysis.
resultsThree hundred and seventy-four studies were evaluated, including five reviews (1.3%) and ten randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (2.7%). COI statements were available in 65% of the studies and 8% had declared COI. COI statement rate, declared COI and funding statements increased over time, while the number of authors affiliated with industry and the discordance between the lack of COI statement and affiliation with industry decreased. Declared COI were more frequent in 2011-2016 as compared to 2001-2010 (OR 4.06; 95% CI 1.15-25.79) and in the higher quartile of a journal's impact factor (OR of 16.73; 95% CI 3.28-306.20). Surprisingly, focus of the study, country of the first author and/or endorsement of the study by a trial group were not associated with COI statements.
conclusionOur study suggests COI reporting to have been unintuitive to most investigators and unreliable before ICMJE statements, and that strong incentives are needed to implement adequate reporting of COI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30141174What 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.