Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35977767›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Reporting conflicts of interest in randomised trials of patient blood management interventions in patients requiring major surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Marius Roman, Oluwatomini Fashina, Sara Tomassini, Riccardo G Abbasciano, Florence Lai, Toby Richards, Gavin Murphy

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 64% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marius RomanDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences and NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Unit in Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK mr345@le.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2269-0500
Oluwatomini FashinaDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences and NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Unit in Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Sara TomassiniDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences and NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Unit in Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Riccardo G AbbascianoDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences and NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Unit in Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Florence LaiDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences and NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Unit in Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4354-0624
Toby RichardsDepartment of Vascular Surgery, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Gavin MurphyDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences and NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Unit in Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
University of Leicester · GBThe University of Western Australia · AU

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/12/1/29419
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to systematically review the effects of declared and undeclared conflicts of interest on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patient blood management (PBM) interventions.

designWe performed a secondary analysis of a recently published meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating five common PBM interventions in patients undergoing major surgery. DATA SOURCES: The databases searched by the original systematic reviews were searched using subject headings and Medical Subject Headings terms according to search strategies from the final search time-points until 1 June 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs on PBM irrespective of blinding, language, date of publication and sample size were included. Abstracts and unpublished trials were excluded. Conflicts of interest were defined as sponsorship, funding or authorship by industry, professional PBM advocacy groups or blood services. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Three independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Pooled treatment effect estimates were reported as risk ratios (RRs) or standardised mean difference with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I

resultsThree hundred and eighty-nine RCTs totalling 53 635 participants were included. Thirty-two trials (8%) were considered free from important sources of bias. There was reporting bias favouring PBM interventions on transfusion across all analyses. In trials with no declared author conflicts of interest, the treatment effect on mortality was RR 1.12 (0.86 to 1.45). In trials where author conflicts of interest were declared, the treatment effect on mortality was RR 0.84 (0.69 to 1.03), with significant reporting bias favouring PBM interventions. Trials with declared conflicts linked to professional PBM advocacy groups (five studies, n=977 patients) reported statistically significant reductions in mortality RR 0.40 (0.17 to 0.92), unlike other groups.

conclusionsLow certainty of the evidence that guides PBM implementation is confounded by evidence of reporting bias, and the effects of declared and undeclared conflicts of interest, favouring PBM on important trial outcomes.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBlood bank & transfusion medicineMEDICAL ETHICSSURGERY

Identifiers

PMID35977767
PMCPMC9389106
OpenAlexW4292103621

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.