Psychiatry, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
BMJ Open. 2022 Aug 29;12(8):e054325. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054325.
To quantify conflicts of interest, assess the accuracy of authors self-reporting them, and examine the association between conflicts of interest and favourability of results and discussions in addiction medicine systematic reviews.
A search was performed on Medline (Ovid) from January 2016 to 25 April 2020 to locate systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on treatments of addiction disorders using a systematic search strategy. Data were extracted from each systematic review, including conflict of interest statements, authorship characteristics and the favourability of the results/conclusion sections. A search algorithm was used to identify any undisclosed conflicts of interest on the Open Payments Database (Dollars for Docs), Dollars for Profs, Google Patents/United States Patent and Trade Office, and prior conflict of interest statements in other published works from these authors.
The search identified 127 systematic reviews, representing 665 unique authors. Of the 127 studies, 81 reported no authors with conflicts of interest, 28 with 1 or more conflict, and 18 had no conflict of interest statement. Additional non-disclosed conflicts of interest were found for 34 authors. There were 69 reviews that had at least one author with a conflict of interest. Of the 69 reviews, 14 (20.3%) reported favourable results and 26 (37.7%) reported favourable discussion/conclusions with no statistically significant association. A subanalysis was performed on publications with only US authors (51) with 35 (68.9%) having at least 1 conflict of interest. US authored studies that had a conflict of interest favoured the results (p = <0.001) and discussion/conclusion (p = 0.018) more often.
Although multiple undisclosed financial conflicts of interest were found, there was no correlation with the favourability of the results or discussion/conclusions across all addiction medicine systematic reviews. Further research needs to be done on US-based publications and encourage disclosure systems worldwide to provide more accurate reporting.
量化利益冲突，评估作者自行报告的准确性，并研究利益冲突与成瘾医学系统评价中结果和讨论的偏向性之间的关系。
2016 年 1 月至 2020 年 4 月 25 日，通过系统搜索策略，在 Medline（Ovid）上进行检索，以确定专注于治疗成瘾障碍的系统评价和荟萃分析。从每个系统评价中提取数据，包括利益冲突声明、作者特征以及结果/结论部分的偏向性。使用搜索算法在 Open Payments Database（Dollars for Docs）、Dollars for Profs、Google Patents/United States Patent and Trade Office 以及这些作者之前发表的其他作品中的先前利益冲突声明中，识别任何未披露的利益冲突。
搜索确定了 127 项系统评价，代表了 665 位不同的作者。在 127 项研究中，81 项研究报告称没有作者存在利益冲突，28 项研究报告称有 1 项或多项冲突，18 项研究没有利益冲突声明。对 34 位作者发现了额外的未披露的利益冲突。有 69 项评论至少有一位作者存在利益冲突。在 69 项评论中，有 14 项（20.3%）报告了有利的结果，26 项（37.7%）报告了有利的讨论/结论，但无统计学意义上的关联。对仅有美国作者的出版物（51 项）进行了亚分析，其中 35 项（68.9%）至少存在 1 项冲突。有利益冲突的美国作者研究更倾向于有利的结果（p<0.001）和讨论/结论（p=0.018）。
尽管发现了多个未披露的财务利益冲突，但在所有成瘾医学系统评价中，结果或讨论/结论的偏向性与利益冲突之间没有相关性。需要对基于美国的出版物进行进一步研究，并鼓励全球披露系统，以提供更准确的报告。
