Lina Zhang1, Feng Dai2, Alexandria Brackett3, Yuhang Ai1, Lingzhong Meng4. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Central South University, Xiangya Hospital, Changsha, Hunan Province, China. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA. 3. Cushing/Whitney Medical Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, TMP 3, New Haven, CT, 208051, USA. lingzhong.meng@yale.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The association between conflicts of interest (COI) and study results or article conclusions in goal-directed hemodynamic therapy (GDHT) research is unknown. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing GDHT with usual care were identified. COI were classified as industry sponsorship, author conflict, device loaner, none, or not reported. The association between COI and study results (complications and mortality) was assessed using both stratified meta-analysis and mixed effects meta-regression. The association between COI and an article's conclusion (graded as GDHT-favorable, neutral, or unfavorable) was investigated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 82 eligible articles, 43 (53%) had self-reported COI, and 50 (61%) favored GDHT. GDHT significantly reduced complications on the basis of the meta-analysis of studies with any type of COI, studies declaring no COI, industry-sponsored studies, and studies with author conflict but not on studies with a device loaner. However, no significant relationship between COI and the relative risk (GDHT vs. usual care) of developing complications was found on the basis of meta-regression (p = 0.25). No significant effect of GDHT was found on mortality. COI had a significant overall effect (p = 0.016) on the odds of having a GDHT-favorable vs. neutral conclusion based on 81 studies. Eighty-four percent of the industry-sponsored studies had a GDHT-favorable conclusion, while only 27% of the studies with a device loaner had the same conclusion grade. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence does not suggest a close relationship between COI and study results in GDHT research. However, a potential association may exist between COI and an article's conclusion in GDHT research.
PURPOSE: The association between conflicts of interest (COI) and study results or article conclusions in goal-directed hemodynamic therapy (GDHT) research is unknown. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing GDHT with usual care were identified. COI were classified as industry sponsorship, author conflict, device loaner, none, or not reported. The association between COI and study results (complications and mortality) was assessed using both stratified meta-analysis and mixed effects meta-regression. The association between COI and an article's conclusion (graded as GDHT-favorable, neutral, or unfavorable) was investigated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 82 eligible articles, 43 (53%) had self-reported COI, and 50 (61%) favored GDHT. GDHT significantly reduced complications on the basis of the meta-analysis of studies with any type of COI, studies declaring no COI, industry-sponsored studies, and studies with author conflict but not on studies with a device loaner. However, no significant relationship between COI and the relative risk (GDHT vs. usual care) of developing complications was found on the basis of meta-regression (p = 0.25). No significant effect of GDHT was found on mortality. COI had a significant overall effect (p = 0.016) on the odds of having a GDHT-favorable vs. neutral conclusion based on 81 studies. Eighty-four percent of the industry-sponsored studies had a GDHT-favorable conclusion, while only 27% of the studies with a device loaner had the same conclusion grade. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence does not suggest a close relationship between COI and study results in GDHT research. However, a potential association may exist between COI and an article's conclusion in GDHT research.
Entities:
Keywords:
Article conclusions; Association; Conflicts of interest; Goal-directed hemodynamic therapy; Study results
Authors: E Rivers; B Nguyen; S Havstad; J Ressler; A Muzzin; B Knoblich; E Peterson; M Tomlanovich Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Praveen Pillai; Irene McEleavy; Matthew Gaughan; Christopher Snowden; Ian Nesbitt; Garrett Durkan; Mark Johnson; Joseph Cosgrove; Andrew Thorpe Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: J M Calvo-Vecino; J Ripollés-Melchor; M G Mythen; R Casans-Francés; A Balik; J P Artacho; E Martínez-Hurtado; A Serrano Romero; C Fernández Pérez; S Asuero de Lis Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Camilo Correa-Gallego; Kay See Tan; Vittoria Arslan-Carlon; Mithat Gonen; Stephanie C Denis; Liana Langdon-Embry; Florence Grant; T Peter Kingham; Ronald P DeMatteo; Peter J Allen; Michael I D'Angelica; William R Jarnagin; Mary Fischer Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Davide Corbella; Patrick Jason Toppin; Anand Ghanekar; Nour Ayach; Jeffery Schiff; Adrian Van Rensburg; Stuart A McCluskey Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 5.063
Authors: Rupert M Pearse; David A Harrison; Neil MacDonald; Michael A Gillies; Mark Blunt; Gareth Ackland; Michael P W Grocott; Aoife Ahern; Kathryn Griggs; Rachael Scott; Charles Hinds; Kathryn Rowan Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maurizio Cecconi; Nicola Fasano; Nicola Langiano; Michele Divella; Maria G Costa; Andrew Rhodes; Giorgio Della Rocca Journal: Crit Care Date: 2011-05-30 Impact factor: 9.097