Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments

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

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

98 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context: Disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs)frompharmaceutical 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 metaanalyses 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 metaanalysis, 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 metaanalyses (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, authorindustry 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1008-1017
Number of pages10
JournalJAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
Volume305
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 9 2011

Fingerprint

Conflict of Interest
Meta-Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Pharmacology
Industry
Drug Industry
Disclosure
Journal Impact Factor
Medicine
Pulmonary Medicine
Endocrinology
Information Storage and Retrieval
Gastroenterology
Cardiology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments. / Roseman, Michelle; Milette, Katherine; Bero, Lisa A.; Coyne, James C.; Lexchin, Joel; Turner, Erick; Thombs, Brett D.

In: JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 305, No. 10, 09.03.2011, p. 1008-1017.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Roseman, Michelle ; Milette, Katherine ; Bero, Lisa A. ; Coyne, James C. ; Lexchin, Joel ; Turner, Erick ; Thombs, Brett D. / Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments. In: JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association. 2011 ; Vol. 305, No. 10. pp. 1008-1017.
@article{005f71a6f25f463a821558ed7ed2b6c4,
title = "Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments",
abstract = "Context: Disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs)frompharmaceutical 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 metaanalyses 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 metaanalysis, 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 metaanalyses (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, authorindustry 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.",
author = "Michelle Roseman and Katherine Milette and Bero, {Lisa A.} and Coyne, {James C.} and Joel Lexchin and Erick Turner and Thombs, {Brett D.}",
year = "2011",
month = "3",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1001/jama.2011.257",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "305",
pages = "1008--1017",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0002-9955",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments

AU - Roseman, Michelle

AU - Milette, Katherine

AU - Bero, Lisa A.

AU - Coyne, James C.

AU - Lexchin, Joel

AU - Turner, Erick

AU - Thombs, Brett D.

PY - 2011/3/9

Y1 - 2011/3/9

N2 - Context: Disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs)frompharmaceutical 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 metaanalyses 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 metaanalysis, 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 metaanalyses (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, authorindustry 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.

AB - Context: Disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs)frompharmaceutical 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 metaanalyses 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 metaanalysis, 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 metaanalyses (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, authorindustry 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79952390925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79952390925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jama.2011.257

DO - 10.1001/jama.2011.257

M3 - Review article

C2 - 21386079

AN - SCOPUS:79952390925

VL - 305

SP - 1008

EP - 1017

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0002-9955

IS - 10

ER -