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 H. Turner, Brett D. Thombs

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

106 Scopus citations

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this