Identifying competing interest disclosures in systematic reviews of surgical interventions and devices: a cross-sectional survey

Perspectives on non-financial conflicts of interest in health-related journals: A scoping review

The objective of this scoping review was to systematically review the literature on how non-financial conflicts of interest (nfCOI) are defined and evaluated, and the strategies suggested for their management in health-related and biomedical journals. PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for peer reviewed studies published in English between 1970 and December 2023 that addressed at least one of the following: the definition, evaluation, or management of non-financial conflicts of interest. From 658 studies, 190 studies were included in the review. nfCOI were discussed most commonly in empirical (22%; 42/190), theoretical (15%; 29/190) and "other" studies (18%; 34/190) - including commentary, perspective, and opinion articles. nfCOI were addressed frequently in the research domain (36%; 68/190), publication domain (29%; 55/190) and clinical practice domain (17%; 32/190). Attitudes toward nfCOI and their management were divided into two distinct groups. The first larger group claimed that nfCOI were problematic and required some form of management, whereas the second group argued that nfCOI were not problematic, and therefore, did not require management. Despite ongoing debates about the nature, definition, and management of nfCOI, many articles included in this review agreed that serious consideration needs to be given to the prevalence, impact and optimal mitigation of non-financial COI.

Appraising systematic reviews: a comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability

Systematic reviews play a crucial role in evidence-based practices as they consolidate research findings to inform decision-making. However, it is essential to assess the quality of systematic reviews to prevent biased or inaccurate conclusions. This paper underscores the importance of adhering to recognized guidelines, such as the PRISMA statement and Cochrane Handbook. These recommendations advocate for systematic approaches and emphasize the documentation of critical components, including the search strategy and study selection. A thorough evaluation of methodologies, research quality, and overall evidence strength is essential during the appraisal process. Identifying potential sources of bias and review limitations, such as selective reporting or trial heterogeneity, is facilitated by tools like the Cochrane Risk of Bias and the AMSTAR 2 checklist. The assessment of included studies emphasizes formulating clear research questions and employing appropriate search strategies to construct robust reviews. Relevance and bias reduction are ensured through meticulous selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Accurate data synthesis, including appropriate data extraction and analysis, is necessary for drawing reliable conclusions. Meta-analysis, a statistical method for aggregating trial findings, improves the precision of treatment impact estimates. Systematic reviews should consider crucial factors such as addressing biases, disclosing conflicts of interest, and acknowledging review and methodological limitations. This paper aims to enhance the reliability of systematic reviews, ultimately improving decision-making in healthcare, public policy, and other domains. It provides academics, practitioners, and policymakers with a comprehensive understanding of the evaluation process, empowering them to make well-informed decisions based on robust data.

Publication practices of sub-Saharan African Cochrane authors: a bibliometric study

INTRODUCTION

Cochrane Africa (https://africa.cochrane.org/) aims to increase Cochrane reviews addressing high priority questions in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Researchers residing in SSA, despite often drawing on Cochrane methods, training or resources, conduct and publish systematic reviews outside of Cochrane. Our objective was to investigate the extent to which Cochrane authors from SSA publish Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.

METHODS

We conducted a bibliometric study of systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews from SSA, first by identifying SSA Cochrane authors, then retrieving their first and last author systematic reviews and overviews from PubMed (2008 to April 2019) and using descriptive analyses to investigate the country of origin, types of reviews and trends in publishing Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews over time. To be eligible, a review had to have predetermined objectives, eligibility criteria, at least two databases searched, data extraction, quality assessment and a first or last author with a SSA affiliation.

RESULTS

We identified 657 Cochrane authors and 757 eligible systematic reviews. Most authors were from South Africa (n=332; 51%), followed by Nigeria (n=126; 19%). Three-quarters of the reviews (71%) were systematic reviews of interventions. The intervention reviews were more likely to be Cochrane reviews (60.3% vs 39.7%). Conversely, the overviews (23.8% vs 76.2%), qualitative reviews (14.8% vs 85.2%), diagnostic test accuracy reviews (16.1% vs 83.9%) and the 'other' reviews (11.1% vs 88.9%) were more likely to be non-Cochrane reviews. During the study period, the number of non-Cochrane reviews increased more than the number of Cochrane reviews. About a quarter of the reviews covered infectious disease topics.

CONCLUSION

Cochrane authors from SSA are increasingly publishing a diverse variety of systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews, often opting for non-Cochrane journals.