Office of Medical Student Research.
Arkansas College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Smith, AR.
J Glaucoma. 2021 Apr 1;30(4):293-299. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001798.
In our sample of systematic reviews focusing on treatments for glaucoma, reviews conducted by authors with a conflict of interest were more likely to reach favorable conclusions compared with reviews without conflicted authors.
Previous studies have demonstrated that authors' conflict of interest can influence outcomes of systematic reviews. Therefore, we aimed to determine whether the presence of 1 of more conflicts was associated with more favorable results and conclusions in systematic reviews of glaucoma interventions.
MEDLINE and Embase were searched for systematic reviews of glaucoma treatments published between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2020. Author conflicts of interest were located using multiple databases (eg, CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO) and previously published disclosure statements. Study sponsorship was determined using each review's funding disclosure statement.
Our study included 26 systematic reviews conducted by 108 authors. Of these reviews, 9 (35%) were conducted by at least 1 author with an undisclosed conflict of interest. Of those 9, 3 (33%) reported results favoring the treatment group, and 5 (56%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 17 systematic reviews with no conflicted authors, 1 (6%) reported results favoring the treatment group, and 2 (12%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. The Fisher exact tests demonstrated that these differences held a statistically significant association between author conflicts and the favorability of the reviews' conclusions toward the treatment group (P=0.04).
We found that systematic reviews conducted by 1 or more authors with conflicts of interest were more likely than those with no conflicted authors to draw favorable conclusions about the investigated intervention.
在我们的系统评价样本中，重点关注青光眼治疗方法，有利益冲突的作者进行的评价更有可能得出有利的结论，而没有利益冲突的作者进行的评价则不然。
先前的研究表明，作者的利益冲突会影响系统评价的结果。因此，我们旨在确定在对青光眼干预措施的系统评价中，存在 1 个或多个冲突是否与更有利的结果和结论相关。
在 2016 年 9 月 1 日至 2020 年 6 月 2 日期间，我们在 MEDLINE 和 Embase 中搜索了关于青光眼治疗的系统评价，这些评价的作者利益冲突是通过多个数据库（如 CMS 公开支付数据库、 Dollars for Profs、Google Patents、美国专利商标局 USPTO）和以前发表的披露声明来确定的。研究赞助是通过每个评价的资助披露声明来确定的。
我们的研究包括 26 项由 108 位作者进行的系统评价。在这些评价中，有 9 项（35%）由至少 1 位未披露利益冲突的作者进行。在这 9 项中，有 3 项（33%）报告了有利于治疗组的结果，有 5 项（56%）报告了有利于治疗组的结论。在没有利益冲突作者的 17 项系统评价中，有 1 项（6%）报告了有利于治疗组的结果，有 2 项（12%）报告了有利于治疗组的结论。Fisher 精确检验表明，这些差异在作者利益冲突与评价结论对治疗组的有利性之间存在统计学显著关联（P=0.04）。
我们发现，有 1 个或多个利益冲突的作者进行的系统评价更有可能得出有利于所研究干预措施的结论，而没有利益冲突的作者则不然。
