ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2026
Conflicts of interest and industry funding declared in systematic reviews of interventions for six common diagnoses.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a lack of data on the prevalence of conflicts of interest (COI) declared in systematic reviews over time.
methodsPubMed was searched for systematic reviews on interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dementia, major depression, and osteoarthritis from 2010 and 2019. Selection was conducted by two independent authors, with disagreements resolved in consensus. COI and funding disclosures were extracted. COI were categorised using a specific framework.
results746 systematic reviews were included. One third involved pharmacological interventions. Systematic reviews from China increased from 4% to 21% between 2010 and 2019; Cochrane reviews decreased from 19% to 4%.Systematic reviews presenting a COI statement increased from 79% to 94%. Those with at least one author declaring individual financial COI decreased from 22% to 17% but remained at 22-23% when excluding systematic reviews from China. Almost 1 in 3 systematic reviews on pharmacological interventions and invasive procedures declared individual financial COI for 2019. Individual intellectual COI were declared in 2.5% and other types of COI were very rare.Systematic reviews presenting a funding statement increased from 65% to 81%; industry funding decreased from 6% to 3.4%. Adding industry funding to the prevalence of systematic reviews declaring financial COI only made a marginal difference.
conclusionsThe proportion of systematic reviews on interventions for common diagnoses declaring individual financial COI remained consistent at approximately one in five for both 2010 and 2019, underscoring the need for further research into the implications of this finding.
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.