Suppr超能文献

系统评价和荟萃分析作者在调查黑色素瘤干预措施方面的利益冲突:横断面文献研究。

Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Investigating Interventions for Melanoma: Cross-sectional Literature Study.

机构信息

Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, OK, United States.

College of Pharmacy, Southwestern Oklahoma State University, Weatherford, OK, United States.

出版信息

JMIR Dermatol. 2021 Jun 7;4(1):e25858. doi: 10.2196/25858.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have highlighted the potential influence that industry relationships may have on the outcomes of medical research.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the prevalence of author conflicts of interest (COIs) in systematic reviews focusing on melanoma interventions, as well as to determine whether the presence of these COIs were associated with an increased likelihood of reporting favorable results and conclusions.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses focusing on interventions for melanoma. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for eligible systematic reviews published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. COI disclosures were cross-referenced with information from the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) Open Payments database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and previously published COI disclosure statements. Results were quantified using descriptive statistics, and relationships were evaluated by Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

Of the 23 systematic reviews included in our sample, 12 (52%) had at least one author with a COI. Of these 12 reviews, 7 (58%) reported narrative results favoring the treatment group and 9 (75%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 11 systematic reviews without a conflicted author, 4 (36%) reported results favoring the treatment group and 5 (45%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. We found no significant association between the presence of author COIs and the favorability of results (P=.53) or conclusions (P=.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Author COIs did not appear to influence the outcomes of systematic reviews regarding melanoma interventions. Clinicians and other readers of dermatology literature should be cognizant of the influence that industry may have on the nature of reported outcomes, including those from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

摘要

背景

先前的研究强调了行业关系可能对医学研究结果产生的潜在影响。

目的

我们旨在确定聚焦于黑色素瘤干预措施的系统评价中作者利益冲突(COI)的流行程度,并确定这些 COI 的存在是否与更有可能报告有利结果和结论相关。

方法

本横断面研究包括有或没有荟萃分析的聚焦于黑色素瘤干预措施的系统评价。我们在 2016 年 9 月 1 日至 2020 年 6 月 2 日期间,检索了 MEDLINE 和 Embase 中符合条件的系统评价。COI 披露与来自 CMS(医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心)开放支付数据库、Dollars for Profs、Google 专利、美国专利商标局和之前发表的 COI 披露声明的信息进行交叉参考。使用描述性统计进行结果量化,并通过 Fisher 精确检验评估关系。

结果

在我们的样本中,23 篇系统评价中有 12 篇(52%)至少有一位作者存在 COI。在这 12 篇综述中,有 7 篇(58%)报告了有利于治疗组的叙述性结果,9 篇(75%)报告了有利于治疗组的结论。在没有冲突作者的 11 篇系统评价中,有 4 篇(36%)报告了有利于治疗组的结果,有 5 篇(45%)报告了有利于治疗组的结论。我们没有发现作者 COI 的存在与结果的有利性(P=.53)或结论的有利性(P=.15)之间存在显著关联。

结论

作者 COI 似乎并未影响黑色素瘤干预措施的系统评价结果。皮肤科文献的临床医生和其他读者应该意识到行业可能对报告结果的性质产生影响,包括来自系统评价和荟萃分析的结果。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f626/10501528/f59f24eece48/derma_v4i1e25858_fig1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验