This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Study: Beware ‘hidden conflicts of interest statements’
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Many authors on meta-analyses do not report “hidden conflicts of interest,” and this practice should change, according to a new study published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Michelle Roseman, of McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada, and colleagues reviewed 29 meta-analyses on a range of drug treatments that were published in high-impact medical journals. Of the selected meta-analyses, each contained between two and 65 randomized control trials (RTCs), or 509 studies overall.
None of the 29 meta-analyses reported being funded by the pharmaceutical industry, yet 219 of the original RCTs reported at least partial funding from the pharmaceutical industry. In 28 of those RCTs, the study drug was actually supplied by the manufacturer.
“Most people want their physicians to make treatment decisions based on high-quality, unbiased evidence,” Roseman stated in a press release. “Researchers who conduct meta-analyses should be aware of who funds the trials they review, and they should assess the risk that findings might be biased due to drug company sponsorship.”
Many researchers who do meta-analyses do not seem to be aware of these issues, according to Roseman.
“We surveyed the authors of the 29 meta-analyses,” she stated in the release. “Only seven said that they even recorded who funded the drug trials they evaluated, and only two published this information. Furthermore, only two recorded author-industry financial ties, and none published this,” she said.
The researchers urged an update to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement that includes a disclosure statement for any relevant conflicts of interest in the included RCTs.
“Without a formal reporting policy, conflicts of interest from RCTs are unlikely to be reported where results are synthesized in meta-analysis,” the researchers wrote.
Reference:
- Roseman M. JAMA. 2011;305:1008-1017. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.257.
Disclosure: One author reports being a consultant to a law firm representing Apotex Inc. in 2007, the Canadian federal government in a lawsuit challenging the Canadian ban on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs in 2007 to 2008, and a consultant to a law firm representing a plaintiff in a case against Allergan in 2010. The other authors report no disclosures for the past 3-year reporting period.
Follow ORTHOSuperSite.com
on Twitter