PURPOSE: Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) is a synthetic colloid used widely for resuscitation despite the availability of safer, less costly fluids. Numerous HES reviews have been published that may have influenced clinicians' practice. We have therefore examined the relationship between the methodological quality of published HES reviews, authors' potential conflicts of interest (pCOI) and the recommendations made. METHODS: Systematic analysis of reviews on HES use. RESULTS: Between 1975 and 2010, 165 reviews were published containing recommendations for or against HES use. From the 1990s onwards, favorable reviews increased from two to eight per year and HES's share of the artificial colloid market tripled from 20 to 60 %. Only 7 % (12/165) of these reviews of HES use contained meta-analyses; these 7 % had higher Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) scores [median (range) 6.5 (3-7)] than reviews without meta-analysis [2 (1-4); p < 0.001]. The rates of recommending against HES use are 83 % (10/12) in meta-analyses and 20 % (31/153) in reviews without meta-analysis (p < 0.0001). Fourteen authors published the majority (70/124) of positive reviews, and ten of these 14 had or have since developed a pCOI with various manufacturers of HES. CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality HES reviews reached different conclusions than high-quality meta-analyses from independent entities, such as Cochrane Reviews. The majority of these low-quality positive HES reviews were written by a small group of authors, most of whom had or have since established ties to industry. The proliferation of positive HES reviews has been associated with increased utilization of an expensive therapy despite the lack of evidence for meaningful clinical benefit and increased risks. Clinicians need to be more informed that marketing efforts are potentially influencing scientific literature.
PURPOSE:Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) is a synthetic colloid used widely for resuscitation despite the availability of safer, less costly fluids. Numerous HES reviews have been published that may have influenced clinicians' practice. We have therefore examined the relationship between the methodological quality of published HES reviews, authors' potential conflicts of interest (pCOI) and the recommendations made. METHODS: Systematic analysis of reviews on HES use. RESULTS: Between 1975 and 2010, 165 reviews were published containing recommendations for or against HES use. From the 1990s onwards, favorable reviews increased from two to eight per year and HES's share of the artificial colloid market tripled from 20 to 60 %. Only 7 % (12/165) of these reviews of HES use contained meta-analyses; these 7 % had higher Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) scores [median (range) 6.5 (3-7)] than reviews without meta-analysis [2 (1-4); p < 0.001]. The rates of recommending against HES use are 83 % (10/12) in meta-analyses and 20 % (31/153) in reviews without meta-analysis (p < 0.0001). Fourteen authors published the majority (70/124) of positive reviews, and ten of these 14 had or have since developed a pCOI with various manufacturers of HES. CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality HES reviews reached different conclusions than high-quality meta-analyses from independent entities, such as Cochrane Reviews. The majority of these low-quality positive HES reviews were written by a small group of authors, most of whom had or have since established ties to industry. The proliferation of positive HES reviews has been associated with increased utilization of an expensive therapy despite the lack of evidence for meaningful clinical benefit and increased risks. Clinicians need to be more informed that marketing efforts are potentially influencing scientific literature.
Authors: G H Guyatt; R B Haynes; R Z Jaeschke; D J Cook; L Green; C D Naylor; M C Wilson; W S Richardson Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kendra N Iskander; Marcin F Osuchowski; Deborah J Stearns-Kurosawa; Shinichiro Kurosawa; David Stepien; Catherine Valentine; Daniel G Remick Journal: Physiol Rev Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 37.312
Authors: Alison E Turnbull; Sarina K Sahetya; E Lee Daugherty Biddison; Christiane S Hartog; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Dominique D Benoit; Bertrand Guidet; Rik T Gerritsen; Mark R Tonelli; J Randall Curtis Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard; Lisa Bero; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Anders W Jørgensen; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Mary Le; Andreas Lundh Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-12-08