Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012 Sep;44(3):421-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.09.016. Epub 2012 Jul 7.
The reporting of funding support and conflict of interest has not been examined in the supportive/palliative oncology literature.
We examined the frequency of funding and conflict of interest reporting and various study characteristics associated with such reporting.
We systematically searched MEDLINE PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, and CINAHL for original studies related to palliative care and cancer in the first six months of 2004 and 2009. For each article, we reviewed the study design, research topic, journal type, and reporting of funding and conflict of interest.
Three hundred forty-four (41%) and 504 (59%) of 848 articles were from 2004 and 2009, respectively. Five hundred two of 848 (59%) studies reported no funding sources, whereas 216 (26%), 70 (8%), 34 (4%), and 26 (3%) reported one, two, three, and four or more sources, respectively. Key funding sources included governmental agencies (n=182/848, 21%), philanthropic foundations (n=163/848, 19%), university departments (n=76/848, 9%), and industry (n=27/848, 3%). Conflict of interest was not reported in 436 of 848 (51%) studies, and only 94 of 848 (11%) explicitly stated no conflict of interest. Other than extramural funding, conflict of interest reporting of any kind was extremely rare (mostly less than 1%). Conflict of interest reporting increased between 2004 and 2009 (39% vs. 55%, P<0.001). Both funding and conflict of interest reporting were associated with prospective studies, larger sample sizes, nontherapeutic studies, North American authors, and publication in palliative care/oncology journals (P≤0.008 for all comparisons).
A majority of supportive/palliative oncology studies did not report funding sources and conflict of interest, raising the need for standardization.
在支持性/姑息肿瘤学文献中，尚未对资助支持和利益冲突的报告进行研究。
我们研究了资助和利益冲突报告的频率以及与这些报告相关的各种研究特征。
我们系统地检索了 MEDLINE PubMed、PsycInfo、EMBASE、ISI Web of Science 和 CINAHL 数据库，以获取 2004 年和 2009 年上半年与姑息治疗和癌症相关的原始研究。对于每篇文章，我们都审查了研究设计、研究主题、期刊类型以及资助和利益冲突的报告情况。
848 篇文章中，分别有 344 篇（41%）和 504 篇（59%）来自 2004 年和 2009 年。848 项研究中有 502 项（59%）未报告资金来源，而 216 项（26%）、70 项（8%）、34 项（4%）和 26 项（3%）分别报告了一个、两个、三个和四个或更多的资金来源。关键的资金来源包括政府机构（182/848，21%）、慈善基金会（163/848，19%）、大学系（76/848，9%）和工业界（27/848，3%）。848 项研究中有 436 项（51%）未报告利益冲突，只有 848 项中的 94 项（11%）明确表示没有利益冲突。除了校外资助外，任何形式的利益冲突报告都极为罕见（大多不到 1%）。2004 年至 2009 年间，利益冲突报告的数量有所增加（39%对 55%，P<0.001）。资助和利益冲突的报告都与前瞻性研究、更大的样本量、非治疗性研究、北美作者以及姑息治疗/肿瘤学杂志的发表有关（所有比较的 P≤0.008）。
大多数支持性/姑息肿瘤学研究都没有报告资金来源和利益冲突，这需要标准化。
