Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO), University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Tobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 Aug 1;11(8):1274-1285. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.12. Epub 2021 Mar 3.
This systematic review aims to estimate the proportion of medical schools and teaching hospitals with conflicts of interest (COI) policies for health research and education, to describe the provisions included in the policies and their impact on research outputs and educational quality or content.
Experimental and observational studies reporting at least one of the above mentioned aims were included irrespective of language, publication type or geographical setting. MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase and the Cochrane Methodology Register were searched from inception to March 2020. Methodological study quality was assessed using an amended version of the Joanna Briggs Institute's checklist for prevalence studies.
Twenty-two cross-sectional studies were included; all were conducted in high-income countries. Of these, 20 studies estimated the prevalence of COI policies, which ranged from 5% to 100% (median: 85%). Twenty studies assessed the provisions included in COI policies with different assessment methods. Of these, nine analysed the strength of the content of medical schools' COI policies using various assessment tools that looked at a range of policy domains. The mean standardised summary score of policy strength ranged from 2% to 73% (median: 30%), with a low score indicating a weak policy. North American institutions more frequently had COI policies and their content was rated as stronger than policies from European institutions. None of the included studies assessed the impact of COI policies on research outputs or educational quality or content.
Prevalence of COI policies at medical schools and teaching hospitals varied greatly in high-income countries. No studies estimated the prevalence of policies in low to middle-income countries. The content of COI policies varied widely and while most European institutions ranked poorly, in North America more medical schools had strong policies. No studies were identified on impact of COI policies on research outputs and educational quality or content.
本系统评价旨在估计有利益冲突(COI)政策的医学院校和教学医院的比例,描述政策中包含的规定及其对研究成果和教育质量或内容的影响。
无论语言、出版类型或地理位置如何,均纳入了报告上述至少一个目标的实验和观察性研究。从建库到 2020 年 3 月,我们在 MEDLINE、Scopus、Embase 和 Cochrane 方法学登记处进行了检索。使用 Joanna Briggs 研究所对流行率研究的检查表的修订版本评估了方法学研究质量。
共纳入 22 项横断面研究,均在高收入国家进行。其中,20 项研究估计了 COI 政策的流行率,范围从 5%到 100%(中位数:85%)。20 项研究评估了 COI 政策中包含的规定,采用了不同的评估方法。其中,9 项分析了使用各种评估工具评估医学院 COI 政策内容的强度,这些工具研究了一系列政策领域。政策强度的标准化综合评分平均值范围从 2%到 73%(中位数:30%),得分较低表明政策较弱。北美机构更频繁地制定 COI 政策,其内容的评分高于欧洲机构的政策。纳入的研究均未评估 COI 政策对研究成果或教育质量或内容的影响。
高收入国家医学院校和教学医院的 COI 政策的流行率差异很大。在中低收入国家,没有研究估计政策的流行率。COI 政策的内容差异很大,尽管大多数欧洲机构评分较低,但在北美,更多的医学院制定了强有力的政策。没有研究确定 COI 政策对研究成果和教育质量或内容的影响。