Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Systematic review finds that appraisal tools for medical research studies address conflicts of interest superficially

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

  1. More than one-third of Cochrane reviews had gift authors, whereas ghost authorship was rare

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) did not improve responsiveness of patient-reported outcomes on quality of life

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Half of Cochrane reviews were published more than 2 years after the protocol

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Unlike ROC analysis, a new IRT method identified clinical thresholds unbiased by disease prevalence

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

Objectives: The objective of this study was to identify and summarize 1) appraisal tools and other guides which address conflicts of interest in medical research studies; and 2) top journals with policies on managing conflicts of interest in journal papers. Study Design and Setting: We searched bibliographic databases, other sources, and websites of 30 top medical journals. Two authors selected documents and extracted data. Results: We included 27 appraisal tools. None were designed specifically for addressing conflicts of interest and they included only 1-2 short items on conflicts of interest. We also included eight other types of guides. Of 27 appraisal tools, 23 addressed study funding, and 19 authors’ conflicts of interest. Nine tools addressed availability of conflicts of interest information, 13 reported conflicts of interest, and five influence from conflicts of interest. Twelve of 30 top journals had conflicts of interest managing policies (beyond disclosure). One journal restricted nonresearch papers (e.g., editorials) to authors without financial conflicts of interest and ten only restricted under certain circumstances. Conclusion: Appraisal tools that address conflicts of interest typically do so superficially and rarely address how conflicts of interest may influence studies. Less than half of top medical journals have explicit policies on managing conflicts of interest.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Vol/bind120
Sider (fra-til)104-115
Antal sider12
ISSN0895-4356
DOI
StatusUdgivet - apr. 2020

ID: 58540749