Lawrence S Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lawrence S Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 27;10(11):e040541. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040541.
To assess the nature, quality and independence of scientific evidence provided in support of claims in industry-authored educational materials in oral health.
A content analysis of educational materials authored by the four major multinational oral health product manufacturers.
Acute care settings.
68 documents focused on oral health or oral care, targeted at acute care clinicians and identified as 'educational' on companies' international websites.
Data were extracted in duplicate for three areas of focus: (a) products referenced in the documents, (b) product-related claims and (c) citations substantiating claims. We assessed claim-citation pairs to determine if information in the citation supported the claim. We analysed the inter-relationships among cited authors and companies using social network analysis.
Documents ranged from training videos to posters to brochures to continuing education courses. The majority of educational materials explicitly mentioned a product (59/68, 87%), a branded product (35/68, 51%), and made a product-related claim (55/68, 81%). Among claims accompanied by a citation, citations did not support the majority (91/147, 62%) of claims, largely because citations were unrelated. References used to support claims most often represented lower levels of evidence: only 9% were systematic reviews (7/76) and 13% were randomised controlled trials (10/76). We found a network of 20 authors to account for 37% (n=77/206) of all references in claim-citation pairs; 60% (12/20) of the top 20 cited authors received financial support from one of the four sampled manufacturers.
Resources to support clinicians' ongoing education are scarce. However, caution should be exercised when relying on industry-authored materials to support continuing education for oral health. Evidence of sponsorship bias and reliance on key opinion leaders suggests that industry-authored educational materials have promotional intent and should be regulated as such.
评估四大跨国口腔保健产品制造商撰写的口腔保健教育材料中支持其主张的科学证据的性质、质量和独立性。
对四大跨国口腔保健产品制造商撰写的教育材料进行内容分析。
急性护理环境。
68 份专注于口腔健康或口腔护理的文件,针对急性护理临床医生,并且在公司的国际网站上被标识为“教育”。
对三个重点领域的数据进行了双重提取:(a) 文件中引用的产品,(b) 与产品相关的主张,以及(c) 支持主张的引文。我们评估了主张-引文对,以确定引文中的信息是否支持主张。我们使用社会网络分析来分析引用作者和公司之间的相互关系。
文件的形式从培训视频到海报到小册子到继续教育课程不等。大多数教育材料都明确提到了一种产品(59/68,87%)、一种品牌产品(35/68,51%)和一种与产品相关的主张(55/68,81%)。在附有引文的主张中,引文并不能支持大多数(91/147,62%)的主张,主要是因为引文是不相关的。用于支持主张的参考文献大多代表了较低水平的证据:只有 9%是系统评价(7/76),13%是随机对照试验(10/76)。我们发现了一个由 20 位作者组成的网络,占主张-引文对中所有参考文献的 37%(n=77/206);前 20 位引用作者中有 60%(12/20)从这四个抽样制造商中的一个获得了资金支持。
支持临床医生继续教育的资源稀缺。然而,在依赖行业撰写的材料来支持口腔保健继续教育时应谨慎。赞助偏见和对关键意见领袖的依赖的证据表明,行业撰写的教育材料具有宣传意图,应按此进行监管。