Mohammed M Beyari1, Alisha Hak2, Chuan Silvia Li2, Hanadi A Lamfon3. 1. Umm Alqura University, Faculty of Dentistry, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: mmbeyari@uqu.edu.sa. 2. Global Research Solutions Inc., Burlington, Ontario, Canada. 3. Umm Alqura University, Faculty of Dentistry, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Conflict of interest (COI) reporting in the medical field has been a concern for a number of years. As the impact of industry on medical research increases, the need for transparency in these relationships increases. In this present study we aim to assess current practices and associations for COI reporting in the field of dentistry. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of conflict of interest reporting for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 6 journals of Dentistry published between Jan 2011 and Mar 2012. We extracted study characteristics in duplicate and used descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests to assess associations. RESULTS: Of 1755 studies across seven journals, we identified 66 eligible RCTs. Many included studies were conducted in Europe (39%), with an average sample size of 355. A total of 76% of studies mentioned the presence or absence of potential COI. No correlation between the direction of results and whether a COI was declared was found (p = 0.328), nor was there an association between funding source and whether COI was discussed (p = 0.120). The journal in which the article was published did however have a correlation as to whether COI was discussed (p ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: RCTs published in the field of dental research inconsistently report the presence or absence of a conflict of interest. Dental journals should standardize conflict of interest reporting to aid dental researchers in understanding when a conflict of interest exists, and to provide transparency to readers and patients alike.
OBJECTIVES: Conflict of interest (COI) reporting in the medical field has been a concern for a number of years. As the impact of industry on medical research increases, the need for transparency in these relationships increases. In this present study we aim to assess current practices and associations for COI reporting in the field of dentistry. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of conflict of interest reporting for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 6 journals of Dentistry published between Jan 2011 and Mar 2012. We extracted study characteristics in duplicate and used descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests to assess associations. RESULTS: Of 1755 studies across seven journals, we identified 66 eligible RCTs. Many included studies were conducted in Europe (39%), with an average sample size of 355. A total of 76% of studies mentioned the presence or absence of potential COI. No correlation between the direction of results and whether a COI was declared was found (p = 0.328), nor was there an association between funding source and whether COI was discussed (p = 0.120). The journal in which the article was published did however have a correlation as to whether COI was discussed (p ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: RCTs published in the field of dental research inconsistently report the presence or absence of a conflict of interest. Dental journals should standardize conflict of interest reporting to aid dental researchers in understanding when a conflict of interest exists, and to provide transparency to readers and patients alike.