Literature DB >> 31809849

Systematic review finds that appraisal tools for medical research studies address conflicts of interest superficially.

Andreas Lundh1, Kristine Rasmussen2, Lasse Østengaard3, Isabelle Boutron4, Lesley A Stewart5, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to identify and summarize 1) appraisal tools and other guides which address conflicts of interest in medical research studies; and 2) top journals with policies on managing conflicts of interest in journal papers. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We searched bibliographic databases, other sources, and websites of 30 top medical journals. Two authors selected documents and extracted data.
RESULTS: We included 27 appraisal tools. None were designed specifically for addressing conflicts of interest and they included only 1-2 short items on conflicts of interest. We also included eight other types of guides. Of 27 appraisal tools, 23 addressed study funding, and 19 authors' conflicts of interest. Nine tools addressed availability of conflicts of interest information, 13 reported conflicts of interest, and five influence from conflicts of interest. Twelve of 30 top journals had conflicts of interest managing policies (beyond disclosure). One journal restricted nonresearch papers (e.g., editorials) to authors without financial conflicts of interest and ten only restricted under certain circumstances.
CONCLUSION: Appraisal tools that address conflicts of interest typically do so superficially and rarely address how conflicts of interest may influence studies. Less than half of top medical journals have explicit policies on managing conflicts of interest.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Conflicts of interest; Critical appraisal tools; Industry funding; Journal policies; Medical journals; Systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31809849     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  6 in total

1.  Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations.

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

2.  Association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: systematic review.

Authors:  Camilla H Nejstgaard; Lisa Bero; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Anders W Jørgensen; Karsten J Jørgensen; Mary Le; Andreas Lundh
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2020-12-09

3.  Broad Medical Uncertainty and the ethical obligation for openness.

Authors:  Rebecca C H Brown; Mícheál de Barra; Brian D Earp
Journal:  Synthese       Date:  2022-04-10       Impact factor: 2.908

4.  Panoramic quality assessment tool for investigator initiated trials.

Authors:  Wenwen Lv; Tingting Hu; Jiayuan Jiang; Tiantian Qu; Enlu Shen; Jiacheng Duan; Xin Miao; Weituo Zhang; Biyun Qian
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-09-13

5.  Influence and management of conflicts of interest in randomised clinical trials: qualitative interview study.

Authors:  Lasse Østengaard; Andreas Lundh; Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen; Suhayb Abdi; Mustafe H A Gelle; Lesley A Stewart; Isabelle Boutron; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2020-10-27

6.  Moving towards less biased research.

Authors:  Mark Yarborough
Journal:  BMJ Open Sci       Date:  2021-01-17
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.