Conflicts of interest and critiques of the use of systematic reviews in policymaking: an analysis of opinion articles.
Conflicts of interest and critiques of the use of systematic reviews in policymaking: an analysis of opinion articles.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/2046-4053-3-122
复制
发表时间：
2014-11-18
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Bero LA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Forsyth SR;Odierna DH;Krauth D;Bero LA
在医学文献中发表了支持或反对使用系统性综述为决策提供信息的强烈意见。本文的目的是研究资金来源和作者的经济利益冲突是否与一篇观点文章是支持还是批评使用系统评价进行决策有关。我们检查了每篇文章中的论点的性质，披露的类型，以及这些文章是否在学术文献中被引用。我们检索了发表关于使用系统评价进行政策制定的观点的文章。我们纳入了对使用系统评价进行决策发表意见的文章，并将每篇文章分类为支持或批评此类使用。我们从每篇文章中提取了关于使用系统评价的所有参数，并将其归纳编码为内部或外部有效性参数，对公开的资金来源，利益冲突和文章类型进行分类，并系统地搜索未公开的财务关系。我们统计了每篇文章在“科学网”中被引用的次数。我们报告描述性统计。批评使用系统性综述进行决策的文章（n = 25）披露或未披露的行业联系是支持使用的文章（n = 34）的2.3倍。我们发现，社论、评论、信件和观点缺乏公开披露的频率几乎是其他类型文章的两倍（60%对33%）。我们还发现，社论，评论，信件和观点在学术文献中引用的频率低于其他文章类型（引用的中位数= 5 v. 19）。在评估支持或反对使用系统评价进行决策的论据的力度时，考虑一篇文章是否具有行业联系是很重要的。我们发现，期刊的利益冲突披露往往是不够的，特别是社论，评论，信件和观点，这些文章被引用作为证据的学术文献。我们的研究结果进一步表明，需要更一致和完整的披露所有类型的文章。
Strong opinions for or against the use of systematic reviews to inform policymaking have been published in the medical literature. The purpose of this paper was to examine whether funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest were associated with whether an opinion article was supportive or critical of the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We examined the nature of the arguments within each article, the types of disclosures present, and whether these articles are being cited in the academic literature. We searched for articles that expressed opinions about the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We included articles that presented opinions about the use of systematic reviews for policymaking and categorized each article as supportive or critical of such use. We extracted all arguments regarding the use of systematic reviews from each article and inductively coded each as internal or external validity argument, categorized disclosed funding sources, conflicts of interest, and article types, and systematically searched for undisclosed financial ties. We counted the number of times each article has been cited in the “Web of Science.” We report descriptive statistics. Articles that were critical of the use of systematic reviews (n = 25) for policymaking had disclosed or undisclosed industry ties 2.3 times more often than articles that were supportive of the use (n = 34). We found that editorials, comments, letters, and perspectives lacked published disclosures nearly twice as often (60% v. 33%) as other types of articles. We also found that editorials, comments, letters, and perspectives were less frequently cited in the academic literature than other article types (median number of citations = 5 v. 19). It is important to consider whether an article has industry ties when evaluating the strength of the argument for or against the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We found that journal conflict of interest disclosures are often inadequate, particularly for editorials, comments, letters, and perspectives and that these articles are being cited as evidence in the academic literature. Our results further suggest the need for more consistent and complete disclosure for all article types.