Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study
Open Access
- 11 May 2020
- Vol. 10 (5), e035633
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035633
Abstract
Objective To (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author–industry financial ties and author–industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010. Design Review of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses. Data sources MEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018. Eligibility criteria for selecting articles We selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥2 RCTs and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs. Results 90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% CI 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author–industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting trial funding was ≤0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author–industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI 2% to 19%). Conclusions Reporting of trial funding sources, trial author–industry financial ties and trial author–industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses.This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: cross sectional studyBMJ, 2012
- Industry sponsorship and research outcomePublished by Wiley ,2011
- Those Who Have the Gold Make the Evidence: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Biases the Outcomes of Clinical Trials of MedicationsScience and Engineering Ethics, 2011
- Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and PresentationPLoS Medicine, 2008
- How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: Causal structures and responsesSocial Science & Medicine (1982), 2008
- Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent EfficacyThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2008
- Evidence b(i)ased medicine--selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applicationsBMJ, 2003
- Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic reviewBMJ, 2003
- Influences on the Quality of Published Drug StudiesInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1996