Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey.
Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey.
复制标题
系统评论作者的财务和非财务冲突报告：方法论调查。
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011997
复制
发表时间：
2016-08-10
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Akl EA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hakoum MB;Anouti S;Al-Gibbawi M;Abou-Jaoude EA;Hasbani DJ;Lopes LC;Agarwal A;Guyatt G;Akl EA
利益冲突可能会使系统评价的结果产生偏差。本方法学调查的目的是评估科克伦和非科克伦系统评价作者报告的利益冲突的频率和不同类型。我们使用科克伦系统综述数据库和奥维德MEDLINE（限于119种核心临床期刊和2015年）检索系统综述。我们将利益冲突披露定义为报告是否存在利益冲突，并使用一个框架将利益冲突分为个人（财务、专业和知识）和机构（财务和咨询）利益冲突。我们进行了描述性和回归分析。在200篇系统性综述中，194篇（97%）报告了作者的利益冲突披露，通常在主文件中，少数情况下是在线（2%）或应要求（5%）。在194篇科克伦和非科克伦综述中，分别有49%和33%的作者至少报告了任何类型的利益冲突（p=0.023）。机构利益冲突的报告频率低于个人利益冲突，与非科克伦评价相比，科克伦评价更可能报告个人知识利益冲突（分别为19%和5%，p=0.004）。回归分析显示，报告利益冲突（至少一种类型的利益冲突，个人财务利益冲突，机构财务利益冲突）与期刊影响因子之间呈正相关，报告个人财务利益冲突与药物与非药物干预之间呈正相关。尽管近一半的已发表系统性综述报告作者（通常是许多作者）存在利益冲突，但超过一半的作者报告他们没有利益冲突。作者报告的个人利益冲突比机构和非财务利益冲突更频繁。
Conflicts of interest may bias the findings of systematic reviews. The objective of this methodological survey was to assess the frequency and different types of conflicts of interest that authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews report. We searched for systematic reviews using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Ovid MEDLINE (limited to the 119 Core Clinical Journals and the year 2015). We defined a conflict of interest disclosure as the reporting of whether a conflict of interest exists or not, and used a framework to classify conflicts of interest into individual (financial, professional and intellectual) and institutional (financial and advocatory) conflicts of interest. We conducted descriptive and regression analyses. Of the 200 systematic reviews, 194 (97%) reported authors' conflicts of interest disclosures, typically in the main document, and in a few cases either online (2%) or on request (5%). Of the 194 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, 49% and 33%, respectively, had at least one author reporting any type of conflict of interest (p=0.023). Institutional conflicts of interest were less frequently reported than individual conflicts of interest, and Cochrane reviews were more likely to report individual intellectual conflicts of interest compared with non-Cochrane reviews (19% and 5%, respectively, p=0.004). Regression analyses showed a positive association between reporting of conflicts of interest (at least one type of conflict of interest, individual financial conflict of interest, institutional financial conflict of interest) and journal impact factor and between reporting individual financial conflicts of interest and pharmacological versus non-pharmacological intervention. Although close to half of the published systematic reviews report that authors (typically many) have conflicts of interest, more than half report that they do not. Authors reported individual conflicts of interest more frequently than institutional and non-financial conflicts of interest.