Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: A cross-sectional study

9Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective To (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author-industry financial ties and author-industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010. Design Review of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses. Data sources MEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018. Eligibility criteria for selecting articles We selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥2 RCTs and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs. Results 90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% CI 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author-industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting trial funding was ≤0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author-industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI 2% to 19%). Conclusions Reporting of trial funding sources, trial author-industry financial ties and trial author-industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Turner, K., Carboni-Jiménez, A., Benea, C., Elder, K., Levis, B., Boruff, J., … Thombs, B. D. (2020). Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035633

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free