TY - JOUR
T1 - Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses
T2 - A cross-sectional study
AU - Turner, Kimberly
AU - Carboni-Jiménez, Andrea
AU - Benea, Carla
AU - Elder, Katharine
AU - Levis, Brooke
AU - Boruff, Jill
AU - Roseman, Michelle
AU - Bero, Lisa
AU - Lexchin, Joel
AU - Turner, Erick H.
AU - Benedetti, Andrea
AU - Thombs, Brett D.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2020/5/11
Y1 - 2020/5/11
N2 - Objective To (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author-industry financial ties and author-industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010. Design Review of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses. Data sources MEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018. Eligibility criteria for selecting articles We selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥2 RCTs and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs. Results 90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% CI 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author-industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting trial funding was ≤0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author-industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI 2% to 19%). Conclusions Reporting of trial funding sources, trial author-industry financial ties and trial author-industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses.
AB - Objective To (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author-industry financial ties and author-industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010. Design Review of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses. Data sources MEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018. Eligibility criteria for selecting articles We selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥2 RCTs and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs. Results 90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% CI 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author-industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting trial funding was ≤0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author-industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI 2% to 19%). Conclusions Reporting of trial funding sources, trial author-industry financial ties and trial author-industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses.
KW - epidemiology
KW - medical ethics
KW - statistics & research methods
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85084583074&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85084583074&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035633
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035633
M3 - Article
C2 - 32398334
AN - SCOPUS:85084583074
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 10
JO - BMJ open
JF - BMJ open
IS - 5
M1 - e035633
ER -