Conflicts of interest disclosure policies among Chinese medical journals: A cross-sectional study

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.

Authors submission guidelines, a survey of pediatric dentistry journals regarding ethical issues

OBJECTIVE

To assess the pattern of instructions regarding the ethical requirements given to authors in various Pediatric Dental Journals.

MATERIAL & METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of 'instructions for authors,' for analysis of guidelines on ethical processes, was done. Instructions to authors in journals of pediatric dentistry across the globe were reviewed for guidelines with regards to fourteen key ethical issues. Descriptive statistics were used, and results were expressed in percentages as well as numbers.

RESULTS

Of the 18journals of pediatric dentistry, all 14 ethical issues were covered by the instructions to authors in only three journals with only 50% of these providing clarity about authorship using ICMJE guidelines. Furthermore, COI declaration was found to be present as mandatory in about 44% of the journals. 38.9% of the sampled journals mentioned guidelines on research misconduct, publication issues such as plagiarism, overlapping/fragmented publications, and availability of raw research data from authors. Guidelines on handling of complaints about editorial team was provided to authors by slightly over 33% of the selected pediatric dentistry titles while handling of complaints about authors and reviewers were mentioned in 16.7%and 55.6% of the journals respectively.

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of Journals of Pediatric Dentistry did not provide adequate instructions to authors regarding ethical issues.

Evaluation of Industry Relationships Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Regarding Ménières Disease

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the presence of conflicts of interest (COI) in SRs and MAs of Ménières disease treatment and identify any related secondary characteristics of these articles.

METHODS

A search was conducted on May 28, 2020 to search MEDLINE and Embase databases for SRs or MAs pertaining to Ménières disease published between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2020. A risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 13 systematic reviews conducted by 49 authors met the inclusion criteria. Of the 49 authors, 7 (14.3%) were found to have some form of COI. Of these 7 authors, 1 (14.3%) completely disclosed all COI within the SR, 1 (14.3%) disclosed one or more COI but were found to have an additional undisclosed COI, and 5 (71.4%) were found to have only undisclosed COI. One of 2 industry funded SRs (50%) had a high risk of bias, and 1 (50%) of the non-industry sponsored SRs were found to have a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall authors of SRs pertaining to Ménières disease appear to be properly disclosing COI at higher rates than other fields of medicine; however, further room for improvement has been noted.

Association between author conflicts of interest and industry-sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Authors' conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship have been shown to influence study outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine whether author conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship influenced the nature of results and conclusions of systematic reviews focusing on treatment interventions for erectile dysfunction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on erectile dysfunction treatments published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. Authors' conflicts of interest were collected from the systematic reviews' disclosure statements. These disclosures were verified using the information provided by the Open Payments, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, and US Patent and Trademark Office databases and from previously published disclosure statements.

RESULTS

Our study included 24 systematic reviews authored by 138 authors. Nineteen authors (13.8%) were found to have conflicts of interest (disclosed, undisclosed, or both). No authors completely disclosed all conflicts. Nine reviews (37.5%) contained at least one author with conflicts of interest; of which eight reported narrative results favoring the treatment group, and seven reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 15 (62.5%) reviews without a conflicted author, 11 reported results favoring the treatment group, and 12 reported conclusions favoring the treatment group.

DISCUSSION

The results and conclusions of systematic reviews for erectile dysfunction treatments did not appear to be influenced by authors who reported conflicts of interest. However, our search algorithm relied on the US-based Open Payments database and a large percentage of reviews in our study were produced by authors with international affiliations. Our study results underscore the difficulties in conducting such analyses.

CONCLUSION

Although we found that undisclosed conflicts of interest (COI) were problematic among systematic reviews of erectile dysfunction treatment, only 14% of authors in our sample possessed them and these COI did not appear to influence the favorability of systematic review outcomes.

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

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.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Systematic Review Authors Investigating Interventions for Achilles Tendon Ruptures

BACKGROUND

The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the effects of undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in Achilles tendon rupture repair-focused systematic reviews.

METHODS

Following a cross-sectional study design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for Achilles tendon rupture repair systematic reviews. We performed screening and data extraction in a blind, triplicate fashion. Each systematic review was evaluated on the individual characteristics of the study, presence of undisclosed and disclosed conflicts of interest, favorability of results and conclusions, and the relationship between conflicts of interest and the favorability of results and conclusions.

RESULTS

Our search produced 172 total systematic reviews pertaining to Achilles tendon rupture repair; of those, only 12 were included in our study. Undisclosed conflicts of interest were found in half (6/12) of the included reviews. However, no significant association was found between conflict of interest and the favorability of results and conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Undisclosed conflicts of interests were discovered in a large percentage of our sample. This lack of disclosure did not appear to increase the likelihood of the systematic review results or conclusions reporting favorability of the intervention being investigated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.