Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33076823›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Identifying competing interest disclosures in systematic reviews of surgical interventions and devices: a cross-sectional survey.

Jiajie Yu, Guanyue Su, Allison Hirst, Zhengyue Yang, You Zhang, Youping Li

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jiajie YuChinese Evidence-based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Guanyue SuSchool of Preclinical and Forensic Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Allison HirstNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.
Zhengyue YangSchool of Medicine, PanZhiHua University, Panzhihua, 617000, China.
You ZhangSchool of Medicine, PanZhiHua University, Panzhihua, 617000, China.
Youping LiChinese Evidence-based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. yzmylab@hotmail.com.
Sichuan University · CNPanzhihua University · CNUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

National Major Science and Technology Projects of China 2018ZX09201009-005-003National Natural Science Foundation of China 71704120
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA competing interest is an important source of bias in research and disclosure is frequently employed as a strategy to manage it. Considering the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) and the varying prevalence of competing interests in different research fields, we conducted a survey to identify the range of competing interests in SRs assessing surgical interventions or devices and explored the association between the competing interest disclosures and authors' conclusions.

methodsWe retrieved SRs of surgical interventions and devices published in 2017 via PubMed. Information regarding general characteristics, funding sources, and competing interest disclosures were extracted. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the studies' characteristics and compared them between Cochrane SRs (CSRs) and non-Cochrane SRs using the Chi-square test. Results were expressed as odds ratio and their 95% confidence interval.

resultsOne hundred fifty-five SRs published in 2017 were included in the study. More than half of the SRs (58.7%) reported their funding sources and 94.2% reported authors' competing interest disclosures. Among 146 SRs that stated competing interest disclosures, only 35 (22.6%) SRs declared at least one author had a competing interest. More than 40 terms were used to describe competing interests. Cochrane SRs (CSRs) were more likely to provide a detailed description of competing interests compared to those in non-CSRs (48.0% versus 25.4%, P = 0.023). No association between positive conclusions and competing interest disclosures was found (P = 0.484, OR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.08, 2.16). In the subgroup analyses, SRs stating no competing interest disclosure were more likely to report positive conclusions than those stating at least one type of competing interest, but the difference is not significantly different (P = 0.406, OR = 1.38, 95%CI: 0.64, 2.98).

conclusionIn surgical SRs, there is a high percentage of competing interest disclosures but without detailed information. The identification and statement of competing interests with a detailed description, particularly the non-financial ones, needs improvement. Some efficient and effective methods/tools for identifying, quantifying, and minimizing potential competing interests in systematic reviews remains valuable.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestDisclosureCross-Sectional StudiesHumansResearch ReportSystematic Reviews as TopicCompeting interestsDevicesSurgical interventionsSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID33076823
PMCPMC7574563
OpenAlexW3093431091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.