Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
E-pub ahead of print

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

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

  1. Consideration of confounding was suboptimal in the reporting of observational studies in psychiatry: a meta-epidemiological study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Overall bias and sample sizes were unchanged in ICU trials over time: a meta-epidemiological study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

  3. Transparent and systematic reporting of meta-epidemiological studies

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta-epidemiological study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. One-way SMS and healthcare outcomes in Africa: Systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analysis

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Randomized clinical trials with run-in periods: frequency, characteristics and reporting

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

OBJECTIVE: To identify and summarise 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: Systematic review. 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 non-research 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
ISSN0895-4356
DOI
StatusE-pub ahead of print - 2020

Bibliografisk note

Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.

ID: 58540749