Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

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

Research output: Contribution to journalReviewpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Machine learning algorithms performed no better than regression models for prognostication in traumatic brain injury

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewpeer-review

View graph of relations

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume120
Pages (from-to)104-115
Number of pages12
ISSN0895-4356
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2020

Bibliographical note

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

    Research areas

  • Conflicts of interest, Critical appraisal tools, Industry funding, Journal policies, Medical journals, Systematic review, Biomedical Research/ethics, Humans, Editorial Policies, Conflict of Interest

ID: 58540749