Publication

Reporting of Conflicts of Interest in Meta-analyses of Trials of Pharmacological Treatments

Roseman, M., Milette, K., Bero, L. A., Coyne, J. C., Lexchin, J., Turner, E. H. & Thombs, B. D., 9-Mar-2011, In : Journal of the American Medical Association. 305, 10, p. 1008-1017 10 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

Copy link to clipboard

Documents

  • Michelle Roseman
  • Katherine Milette
  • Lisa A. Bero
  • James C. Coyne
  • Joel Lexchin
  • Erick H. Turner
  • Brett D. Thombs

Context Disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs) from pharmaceutical industry study funding and author-industry financial relationships is sometimes recommended for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in biomedical journals. Authors of meta-analyses, however, are not required to report COIs disclosed in original reports of included RCTs.

Objective To investigate whether meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals report COIs disclosed in included RCTs.

Data Sources and Study Selection We selected the 3 most recent meta-analyses of patented pharmacological treatments published January 2009 through October 2009 in each general medicine journal with an impact factor of at least 10; in high-impact journals in each of the 5 specialty medicine areas with the greatest 2008 global therapeutic sales (oncology, cardiology, respiratory medicine, endocrinology, and gastroenterology); and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Data Extraction Two investigators independently extracted data on disclosed study funding, author-industry financial ties, and author employment from each meta-analysis, from RCTs included in each meta-analysis, and on whether meta-analyses reported disclosed COIs of included RCTs.

Results Of 29 meta-analyses reviewed, which included 509 RCTs, only 2 meta-analyses (7%) reported RCT funding sources; and 0 reported RCT author-industry ties or employment by the pharmaceutical industry. Of 318 meta-analyzed RCTs that reported funding sources, 219 (69%) were industry funded; and 91 of 132 (69%) that reported author financial disclosures had 1 or more authors with pharmaceutical industry financial ties. In 7 of the 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 100% of included RCTs had at least 1 form of disclosed COI (pharmaceutical industry funding, author-industry financial ties, or employment), yet only 1 of these 7 meta-analyses reported RCT funding sources, and 0 reported RCT author-industry ties or employment.

Conclusion Among a group of meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals, information concerning primary study funding and author COIs for the included RCTs were only rarely reported. JAMA. 2011;305(10):1008-1017 www.jama.com

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1008-1017
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of the American Medical Association
Volume305
Issue number10
Publication statusPublished - 9-Mar-2011

    Keywords

  • CELL LUNG-CANCER, PHARMACEUTICAL-INDUSTRY, RANDOMIZED-TRIALS, DRUG TRIALS, CARDIOVASCULAR-DISEASE, COMPETING INTERESTS, DIABETES-MELLITUS, CLINICAL-TRIALS, FINANCIAL TIES, RISK

Download statistics

No data available

ID: 5287286