Suppr超能文献

评估行业赞助与大麻使用障碍治疗系统评价作者利益冲突之间的关系。

Evaluating the relationship between industry sponsorship and conflicts of interest among systematic review authors on treatments for cannabis use disorder.

机构信息

Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.

Office of Research, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, USA.

出版信息

Subst Abus. 2022;43(1):1180-1189. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2022.2074598.

Abstract

Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug worldwide. In addition to potential adverse effects, an estimated 9% consistent cannabis users are likely to become dependent and may develop a cannabis use disorder (CUD). : This cross-sectional study developed a search strategy using Ovid, MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on CUD treatment in June 2020. These reviews were evaluated for conflicts of interest (COIs) per previously developed classification scheme. Our primary objectives were to (1) evaluate the presence of disclosed or undisclosed COI of systematic review authors, regarding treatment of CUD; and (2) determine whether overall summary effect estimates, narrative results and conclusions were influenced by the presence of disclosed or undisclosed COIs among systematic review authors. : Our systematic search returned 560 articles which 9 systematic reviews were eligible for data extraction. We found 77.8% (7/9) contained at least one author with a COI. From the 51 authors included, 29.4% (15/51) were found to have a COI. Forty-four percent (4/9) were funded, 22.2% (2/9) were not funded, and 33.3% (3/9) had no funding statements. Out of the 7 systematic reviews with one or more authors containing COI, 14.2% (1/7) included results favoring the treatment group and 28.6% (2/7) included conclusions favoring the treatment group. Our results showed no significance between funding source and results ( = 0.429) or conclusions. Additionally, we found no significance between the presence of COIs with the favorability of results ( = 0.56) or conclusions. : Multiple studies favored the treatment of cannabis-containing products, even though COIs were found in the majority of the systematic reviews. COIs have the ability to sway results of a study, which can affect clinical decision-making. Stricter guidelines should be enforced among authors displaying COIs in systematic reviews studying CUD treatment.

摘要

大麻是全球最常用的非法药物。除了潜在的不良影响外,据估计,9%的长期大麻使用者可能会产生依赖性,并可能发展成大麻使用障碍(CUD)。本横断面研究于 2020 年 6 月使用 Ovid、MEDLINE 和 Ovid Embase 制定了一项检索策略,用于检索聚焦于 CUD 治疗的系统评价和荟萃分析。根据之前制定的分类方案,对这些综述进行了利益冲突(COI)的评估。我们的主要目标是:(1)评估系统评价作者是否披露或未披露与 CUD 治疗相关的 COI;(2)确定系统评价作者是否存在披露或未披露的 COI 是否会影响总体汇总效应估计值、叙述性结果和结论。我们的系统检索共返回 560 篇文章,其中有 9 篇系统评价符合数据提取标准。我们发现其中 77.8%(7/9)的研究至少有 1 位作者存在 COI。在纳入的 51 位作者中,29.4%(15/51)存在 COI。44%(4/9)的研究有资金支持,22.2%(2/9)的研究没有资金支持,33.3%(3/9)的研究没有资金声明。在 7 篇存在 1 位或多位作者存在 COI 的系统评价中,有 14.2%(1/7)的研究结果支持治疗组,28.6%(2/7)的研究结论支持治疗组。我们的结果显示,资金来源与结果( = 0.429)或结论之间无统计学意义。此外,我们发现 COI 的存在与结果的倾向性( = 0.56)或结论之间无统计学意义。多项研究支持含大麻产品的治疗,尽管大多数系统评价都发现了 COI。COI 有能力影响研究结果,从而影响临床决策。在研究 CUD 治疗的系统评价中,应加强对显示 COI 的作者的严格指导方针。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验