ReviewBMJ open2022
Evidence for stratified conflicts of interest policies in research contexts: a methodological review.
Review in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Noninferiority and Efficiency/Revenue Facilitation (NERF) Endpoints : Shifting Grounds of Argument in Health AI Interventional Studies.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Research on policy mechanisms to address funding bias and conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a scoping review.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- Ethical challenges in contemporary psychiatry: an overview and an appraisal of possible strategies and research needs.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2024Article
- Beyond Bias: Aggregate Approaches to Conflicts of Interest Research and Policy in Biomedical Research.World medical & health policy · 2024Article
- Sample Size Considerations for Fine-Tuning Large Language Models for Named Entity Recognition Tasks: Methodological Study.JMIR AI · 2024Article
- Managing institutional conflicts: Stakeholder accounts of communication between conflict of interest and technology transfer offices.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to conduct a methodological review of research on the effects of conflicts of interest (COIs) in research contexts.
designMethodological review. DATA SOURCES: Ovid. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies published between 1986 and 2021 conducting quantitative assessments of relationships between industry funding or COI and four target outcomes: positive study results, methodological biases, reporting quality and results-conclusions concordance. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We assessed key facets of study design: our primary analysis identified whether studies stratified industry funding or COI variables by magnitude (ie, number of COI or disbursement amount), type (employment, travel fees, speaking fees) or if they assessed dichotomous variables (ie, conflict present or absent). Secondary analyses focused on target outcomes and available effects measures.
resultsOf the 167 articles included in this study, a substantial majority (98.2%) evaluated the effects of industry sponsorship. None evaluated associations between funding magnitude and outcomes of interest. Seven studies (4.3%) stratified industry funding based on the mechanism of disbursement or funder relationship to product (manufacturer or competitor). A fifth of the articles (19.8%) assessed the effects of author COI on target outcomes. None evaluated COI magnitude, and three studies (9.1%) stratified COI by disbursement type and/or reporting practices. Participation of an industry-employed author showed the most consistent effect on favourability of results across studies.
conclusionsSubstantial evidence demonstrates that industry funding and COI can bias biomedical research. Evidence-based policies are essential for mitigating the risks associated with COI. Although most policies stratify guidelines for managing COI, differentiating COIs based on the type of relationship or monetary value, this review shows that the available research has generally not been designed to assess the differential risks of COI types or magnitudes. Targeted research is necessary to establish an evidence base that can effectively inform policy to manage COI.
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.