Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: Cross sectional study

Michelle Roseman, Erick Turner, Joel Lexchin, James C. Coyne, Lisa A. Bero, Brett D. Thombs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the degree to which Cochrane reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 reported conflicts of interest from included trials and, among reviews that reported this information, where it was located in the review documents. Design: Cross sectional study. Data sources: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Selection criteria: Systematic reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, with review content classified as up to date in 2008 or later and with results from one or more randomised controlled trials. Results: Of 151 included Cochrane reviews, 46 (30%, 95% confidence interval 24% to 38%) reported information on the funding sources of included trials, including 30 (20%, 14% to 27%) that reported information on trial funding for all included trials and 16 (11%, 7% to 17%) that reported for some, but not all, trials. Only 16 of the 151 Cochrane reviews (11%, 7% to 17%) provided any information on trial author-industry financial ties or trial author-industry employment. Information on trial funding and trial author-industry ties was reported in one to seven locations within each review, with no consistent reporting location observed. Conclusions: Most Cochrane reviews of drug trials published in 2010 did not provide information on trial funding sources or trial author-industry financial ties or employment. When this information was reported, location of reporting was inconsistent across reviews.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere5155
JournalBMJ (Online)
Volume345
Issue number7874
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 14 2012

Fingerprint

Conflict of Interest
Industry
Cross-Sectional Studies
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Databases
Information Storage and Retrieval
Patient Selection
Randomized Controlled Trials
Confidence Intervals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Roseman, M., Turner, E., Lexchin, J., Coyne, J. C., Bero, L. A., & Thombs, B. D. (2012). Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: Cross sectional study. BMJ (Online), 345(7874), [e5155]. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5155

Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews : Cross sectional study. / Roseman, Michelle; Turner, Erick; Lexchin, Joel; Coyne, James C.; Bero, Lisa A.; Thombs, Brett D.

In: BMJ (Online), Vol. 345, No. 7874, e5155, 14.09.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Roseman, Michelle ; Turner, Erick ; Lexchin, Joel ; Coyne, James C. ; Bero, Lisa A. ; Thombs, Brett D. / Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews : Cross sectional study. In: BMJ (Online). 2012 ; Vol. 345, No. 7874.
@article{b56f511ce6e342859139aa90fae1b1b7,
title = "Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: Cross sectional study",
abstract = "Objectives: To investigate the degree to which Cochrane reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 reported conflicts of interest from included trials and, among reviews that reported this information, where it was located in the review documents. Design: Cross sectional study. Data sources: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Selection criteria: Systematic reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, with review content classified as up to date in 2008 or later and with results from one or more randomised controlled trials. Results: Of 151 included Cochrane reviews, 46 (30{\%}, 95{\%} confidence interval 24{\%} to 38{\%}) reported information on the funding sources of included trials, including 30 (20{\%}, 14{\%} to 27{\%}) that reported information on trial funding for all included trials and 16 (11{\%}, 7{\%} to 17{\%}) that reported for some, but not all, trials. Only 16 of the 151 Cochrane reviews (11{\%}, 7{\%} to 17{\%}) provided any information on trial author-industry financial ties or trial author-industry employment. Information on trial funding and trial author-industry ties was reported in one to seven locations within each review, with no consistent reporting location observed. Conclusions: Most Cochrane reviews of drug trials published in 2010 did not provide information on trial funding sources or trial author-industry financial ties or employment. When this information was reported, location of reporting was inconsistent across reviews.",
author = "Michelle Roseman and Erick Turner and Joel Lexchin and Coyne, {James C.} and Bero, {Lisa A.} and Thombs, {Brett D.}",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
day = "14",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.e5155",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "345",
journal = "BMJ (Online)",
issn = "0267-0623",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "7874",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews

T2 - Cross sectional study

AU - Roseman, Michelle

AU - Turner, Erick

AU - Lexchin, Joel

AU - Coyne, James C.

AU - Bero, Lisa A.

AU - Thombs, Brett D.

PY - 2012/9/14

Y1 - 2012/9/14

N2 - Objectives: To investigate the degree to which Cochrane reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 reported conflicts of interest from included trials and, among reviews that reported this information, where it was located in the review documents. Design: Cross sectional study. Data sources: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Selection criteria: Systematic reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, with review content classified as up to date in 2008 or later and with results from one or more randomised controlled trials. Results: Of 151 included Cochrane reviews, 46 (30%, 95% confidence interval 24% to 38%) reported information on the funding sources of included trials, including 30 (20%, 14% to 27%) that reported information on trial funding for all included trials and 16 (11%, 7% to 17%) that reported for some, but not all, trials. Only 16 of the 151 Cochrane reviews (11%, 7% to 17%) provided any information on trial author-industry financial ties or trial author-industry employment. Information on trial funding and trial author-industry ties was reported in one to seven locations within each review, with no consistent reporting location observed. Conclusions: Most Cochrane reviews of drug trials published in 2010 did not provide information on trial funding sources or trial author-industry financial ties or employment. When this information was reported, location of reporting was inconsistent across reviews.

AB - Objectives: To investigate the degree to which Cochrane reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 reported conflicts of interest from included trials and, among reviews that reported this information, where it was located in the review documents. Design: Cross sectional study. Data sources: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Selection criteria: Systematic reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, with review content classified as up to date in 2008 or later and with results from one or more randomised controlled trials. Results: Of 151 included Cochrane reviews, 46 (30%, 95% confidence interval 24% to 38%) reported information on the funding sources of included trials, including 30 (20%, 14% to 27%) that reported information on trial funding for all included trials and 16 (11%, 7% to 17%) that reported for some, but not all, trials. Only 16 of the 151 Cochrane reviews (11%, 7% to 17%) provided any information on trial author-industry financial ties or trial author-industry employment. Information on trial funding and trial author-industry ties was reported in one to seven locations within each review, with no consistent reporting location observed. Conclusions: Most Cochrane reviews of drug trials published in 2010 did not provide information on trial funding sources or trial author-industry financial ties or employment. When this information was reported, location of reporting was inconsistent across reviews.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866288060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866288060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.e5155

DO - 10.1136/bmj.e5155

M3 - Article

C2 - 22906823

AN - SCOPUS:84866288060

VL - 345

JO - BMJ (Online)

JF - BMJ (Online)

SN - 0267-0623

IS - 7874

M1 - e5155

ER -