Influence of conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship on outcomes of uterine cancer systematic reviews: Cross‐sectional study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roman Edwards ◽  
Holly Flores ◽  
J. Michael Anderson ◽  
Elaine Lai ◽  
Michael Weaver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Uterine Cancer ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Industry Sponsorship

scholarly journals Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 619-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. C. H. Chung ◽  
X. Y. Wu ◽  
Y. Feng ◽  
R. S. T. Ho ◽  
S. Y. S. Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Pharmacological Treatments ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Depression Treatments

Aims.Depression is one of the most common mental disorders and identifying effective treatment strategies is crucial for the control of depression. Well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses can provide the best evidence for supporting treatment decision-making. Nevertheless, the trustworthiness of conclusions can be limited by lack of methodological rigour. This study aims to assess the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on depression treatments.Methods.A cross-sectional study on the bibliographical and methodological characteristics of SRs published on depression treatments trials was conducted. Two electronic databases (the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) were searched for potential SRs. SRs with at least one meta-analysis on the effects of depression treatments were considered eligible. The methodological quality of included SRs was assessed using the validated AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool. The associations between bibliographical characteristics and scoring on AMSTAR items were analysed using logistic regression analysis.Results.A total of 358 SRs were included and appraised. Over half of included SRs (n = 195) focused on non-pharmacological treatments and harms were reported in 45.5% (n = 163) of all studies. Studies varied in methods and reporting practices: only 112 (31.3%) took the risk of bias among primary studies into account when formulating conclusions; 245 (68.4%) did not fully declare conflict of interests; 93 (26.0%) reported an ‘a priori’ design and 104 (29.1%) provided lists of both included and excluded studies. Results from regression analyses showed: more recent publications were more likely to report ‘a priori’ designs [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.57], to describe study characteristics fully (AOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06–1.28), and to assess presence of publication bias (AOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.19), but were less likely to list both included and excluded studies (AOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81–0.92). SRs published in journals with higher impact factor (AOR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04–1.25), completed by more review authors (AOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01–1.24) and SRs on non-pharmacological treatments (AOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.01–2.59) were associated with better performance in publication bias assessment.Conclusion.The methodological quality of included SRs is disappointing. Future SRs should strive to improve rigour by considering of risk of bias when formulating conclusions, reporting conflict of interests and authors should explicitly describe harms. SR authors should also use appropriate methods to combine the results, prevent language and publication biases, and ensure timely updates.

scholarly journals A cross-sectional study of all clinicians’ conflict of interest disclosures to NHS hospital employers in England 2015-2016

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e019952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harriet Ruth Feldman ◽  
Nicholas J DeVito ◽  
Jonathan Mendel ◽  
David E Carroll ◽  
Ben Goldacre
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Current System ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Gift ◽  
The Uk

ObjectiveWe set out to document how NHS trusts in the UK record and share disclosures of conflict of interest by their employees.DesignCross-sectional study of responses to a Freedom of Information Act request for Gifts and Hospitality Registers.SettingNHS Trusts (secondary/tertiary care organisations) in England.Participants236 Trusts were contacted, of which 217 responded.Main outcome measuresWe assessed all disclosures for completeness and openness, scoring them for achieving each of five measures of transparency.Results185 Trusts (78%) provided a register. 71 Trusts did not respond within the 28 day time limit required by the FoIA. Most COI registers were incomplete by design, and did not contain the information necessary to assess conflicts of interest. 126/185 (68%) did not record the names of recipients. 47/185 (25%) did not record the cash value of the gift or hospitality. Only 31/185 registers (16%) contained the names of recipients, the names of donors, and the cash amounts received. 18/185 (10%) contained none of: recipient name, donor name, and cash amount. Only 15 Trusts had their disclosure register publicly available online (6%). We generated a transparency index assessing whether each Trust met the following criteria: responded on time; provided a register; had a register with fields identifying donor, recipient, and cash amount; provided a register in a format that allowed further analysis; and had their register publicly available online. Mean attainment was 1.9/5; no NHS trust met all five criteria.ConclusionOverall, recording of employees’ conflicts of interest by NHS trusts is poor. None of the NHS Trusts in England met all transparency criteria. 19 did not respond to our FoIA requests, 51 did not provide a Gifts and Hospitality Register and only 31 of the registers provided contained enough information to assess employees’ conflicts of interest. Despite obligations on healthcare professionals to disclose conflicts of interest, and on organisations to record these, the current system for logging and tracking such disclosures is not functioning adequately. We propose a simple national template for reporting conflicts of interest, modelled on the US ‘Sunshine Act’.

scholarly journals The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study

Heliyon ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. e04776
Author(s):  
Katja Matthias ◽  
Olesja Rissling ◽  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Johannes Morche ◽  
Marc Nocon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Depression ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for osteoporosis: A cross-sectional study

Bone ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 139 ◽  
pp. 115541
Author(s):  
Anna K.N. Tsoi ◽  
Leonard T.F. Ho ◽  
Irene X.Y. Wu ◽  
Charlene H.L. Wong ◽  
Robin S.T. Ho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

scholarly journals Pattern of Chemotherapy-Related Adverse Effects Among Adult Patients With Cancer Treated at Gondar University Referral Hospital, Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 15s-15s
Author(s):  
Sewunet Admasu Belachew ◽  
Daniel Asfaw Erku ◽  
Abebe Basazn Mekuria ◽  
Begashaw Melaku Gebresillassie
Keyword(s):  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Chemotherapeutic Agents ◽  
Referral Hospital ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patients With Cancer

Abstract 32 Purpose Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a global problem and constitute a major clinical problem in terms of human suffering. The high toxicity and narrow therapeutic index of chemotherapeutic agents makes oncology pharmacovigilance essential. The objective of the current study was to assess the pattern of ADRs that occur in patients with cancer who were treated with chemotherapy in a tertiary care teaching hospital in Ethiopia. Methods A cross-sectional study over a 2-year period from September 2013 to August 2015 was conducted in patients with cancer who underwent chemotherapy at Gondar University Referral Hospital Oncology Center. Data were collected directly from patients and their medical case files. Reported ADRs were assessed for causality using the WHO causality assessment scale and Naranjo’s algorithm. Severities of the reported reactions were also assessed using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0). Pearson’s χ2 test was used to examine the association between two categorical variables. Results A total of 815 ADRs were identified from 203 patients who were included in the study. The most commonly occurring ADRs were nausea and vomiting (18.9%), infections (16.7%), neutropenia (14.7%), fever and/or chills (11.3%), and anemia (9.3%). Platinum compounds (31.4%) were the most common group of drugs that caused ADRs. Of reported ADRs, 65.8% were grades 3 to 4 (severe level), 29.9% were grades 1 to 2 (mild level), and 4.3% were grade 5 (toxic level). Significant association was found between age, number of chemotherapeutic agents, and dose of chemotherapy with the occurrence of grades 3 to 5 toxicity. Conclusion The high incidence of chemotherapy-related ADRs among patients with cancer is of concern. Establishing an effective ADR monitoring and reporting system—oncopharmacovigilance—and creating awareness among health care professionals of the importance of ADR reporting may help prevent the problem. AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST No COIs from the authors.

scholarly journals Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of non‐Cochrane updates of systematic reviews: A cross‐sectional study

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 471-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanja Rombey ◽  
Valerie Lochner ◽  
Livia Puljak ◽  
Nadja Könsgen ◽  
Tim Mathes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

scholarly journals Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts

BMC Medicine ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor M Montori ◽  
◽  
Nancy L Wilczynski ◽  
Douglas Morgan ◽  
R Brian Haynes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Citation Counts
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document