scholarly journals Conflicts of interest among authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating interventions for melanoma (Preprint)

10.2196/25858 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zane Rulon ◽  
Kalyn Powers ◽  
J. Michael Anderson ◽  
Michael Weaver ◽  
Austin Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review

10.2196/19099 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. e19099
Author(s):  
Ben Patel ◽  
Arron Thind
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Validated Questionnaire ◽  
System Usability Scale ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Mhealth Apps

Background Mobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate. The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation. Objective This systematic review evaluates the (1) methodology of usability analyses, (2) domains of usability being assessed, and (3) results of usability analyses. Methods The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews checklist was consulted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was adhered to. Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ). Results A total of 33 of 720 identified studies were included for data extraction. Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point. Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33). Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies. Usability of mHealth apps was above industry average, with median System Usability Scale scores ranging from 76 to 95 out of 100. Conclusions Current analyses of mHealth app usability are substandard. RCTs are rare, and validated questionnaires are infrequently consulted. Of the 3 domains of usability, only satisfaction is regularly assessed. There is significant bias throughout the literature, particularly with regards to conflicts of interest. Future studies should adhere to the MAUQ to assess usability and improve the utility of mHealth apps.

scholarly journals Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Patel ◽  
Arron Thind
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Validated Questionnaire ◽  
System Usability Scale ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Mhealth Apps

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate. The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation. OBJECTIVE This systematic review evaluates the (1) methodology of usability analyses, (2) domains of usability being assessed, and (3) results of usability analyses. METHODS The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews checklist was consulted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was adhered to. Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ). RESULTS A total of 33 of 720 identified studies were included for data extraction. Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point. Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33). Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies. Usability of mHealth apps was above industry average, with median System Usability Scale scores ranging from 76 to 95 out of 100. CONCLUSIONS Current analyses of mHealth app usability are substandard. RCTs are rare, and validated questionnaires are infrequently consulted. Of the 3 domains of usability, only satisfaction is regularly assessed. There is significant bias throughout the literature, particularly with regards to conflicts of interest. Future studies should adhere to the MAUQ to assess usability and improve the utility of mHealth apps.

scholarly journals Conflicts of interest among authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating interventions for melanoma: Cross-sectional Analysis (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zane Rulon ◽  
Kalyn Powers ◽  
J. Michael Anderson ◽  
Michael Weaver ◽  
Austin Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Group ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Sectional Analysis ◽  
States Patent

BACKGROUND Background: Previous studies have highlighted the potential influence industry relationships may have on the outcomes of medical research. OBJECTIVE Objectives: We aimed to determine the prevalence of author COI in systematic reviews focusing on melanoma interventions, as well as determine whether the presence of these COI were associated with an increased likelihood of reporting favorable results and conclusions. METHODS Methods: This cross-sectional study included systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses focusing on interventions for melanoma. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for eligible systematic reviews published between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2020. COI disclosures were cross-referenced with information from the CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and previously published COI disclosure statements. Results were quantified using descriptive statistics and relationships were evaluated by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS Results: Of the 23 systematic reviews included in our sample, 12 (12/23; 52%) had at least one author with a COI. Of these reviews, seven (58%) reported narrative results favoring the treatment group and nine (75%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 11 systematic reviews without a conflicted author, four (36%) reported results favoring the treatment group and five (45%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. We found no significant association between the presence of author COI and the favorability of results (p= 0.53) or conclusions (p= 0.15). CONCLUSIONS Conclusions: Author COI did not appear to influence the outcomes of systematic reviews regarding melanoma interventions. Clinicians and other readers of dermatology literature should be cognizant of the influence that industry may have on the nature of reported outcomes, including those from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Evaluation of Industry Relationships Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Regarding Ménières Disease

2021 ◽  
pp. 000348942110518
Author(s):  
David Wenger ◽  
Ross Nowlin ◽  
Austin L. Johnson ◽  
Michael Anderson ◽  
Michael Weaver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Disease Treatment ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

Objectives: To quantify the presence of conflicts of interest (COI) in SRs and MAs of Ménières disease treatment and identify any related secondary characteristics of these articles. Methods: A search was conducted on May 28, 2020 to search MEDLINE and Embase databases for SRs or MAs pertaining to Ménières disease published between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2020. A risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment criteria. Results: A total of 13 systematic reviews conducted by 49 authors met the inclusion criteria. Of the 49 authors, 7 (14.3%) were found to have some form of COI. Of these 7 authors, 1 (14.3%) completely disclosed all COI within the SR, 1 (14.3%) disclosed one or more COI but were found to have an additional undisclosed COI, and 5 (71.4%) were found to have only undisclosed COI. One of 2 industry funded SRs (50%) had a high risk of bias, and 1 (50%) of the non-industry sponsored SRs were found to have a high risk of bias. Conclusions: Overall authors of SRs pertaining to Ménières disease appear to be properly disclosing COI at higher rates than other fields of medicine; however, further room for improvement has been noted.

Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews Regarding the Management of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain with Opioids Analgesics

Pain Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Connor Polson ◽  
Parker Siex ◽  
J Michael Anderson ◽  
Michael Weaver ◽  
Will Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Opioid Analgesics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Review Author ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Disclosure Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Objective We sought to determine whether author conflict of interest (disclosed or undisclosed) or industry sponsorship influenced the favorability of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the use of opioid analgesics for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. Methods Our search included the MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases. Study sponsorship was determined using the funding statement provided in each systematic review. Author COI information was extracted from the COI disclosure statement. This information was cross-referenced with information available on the CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and previously published COI disclosures. Results Eight systematic reviews authored by 83 authors were included. Of these authors, 19 (23.0%) were found to have a COI, of which the majority (17/19; 89.5%) had at least one undisclosed COI. Despite nearly one-quarter of authors having a COI, we found no association between the presence of a COI and the favorability of results (P = 0.64) or conclusions (P = 0.07). Conclusions COI are common and frequently undisclosed among systematic review authors investigating opioid analgesics for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. Despite a high prevalence of COI, we did not find that these author-industry relationships had a significant influence on the favorability of results and conclusions; however, our findings should be considered a lower bound estimate of the true influence author COI have on outcomes of pain medicine systematic reviews secondary to the low sample size included in the present study.

scholarly journals Reporting of Drug Trial Funding Sources and Author Financial Conflicts of Interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane Meta-analyses: A Cross-sectional Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Turner ◽  
Andrea Carboni Jimenez ◽  
Carla Benea ◽  
Katharine Elder ◽  
Brooke Levis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
General Medicine ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Drug Trial ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Drug Trials ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
Financial Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: A previous study found that 2 of 29 (6.9%) meta-analyses published in high-impact journals in 2009 reported included drug trials’ funding sources, and none reported trial authors’ financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) or industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved since 2009. Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which pharmaceutical industry funding and author-industry FCOIs and employment from included drug trials are reported in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals; and (2) compare current reporting with results from 2009.Methods: We searched PubMed (January 2017 – October 2018) for systematic reviews with meta-analyses including ≥ 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patented drugs. We included 3 meta-analyses published January 2017-October 2018 from each of 4 high-impact general medicine journals, high-impact journals from 5 specialty areas, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as in the previous study. Results: Among 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 13 of 29 (44.8%) reported the funding source of included trials compared to 2 of 29 (6.9%) in 2009, a difference of 37.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.7% to 56.3%); this included 7 of 11 (63.6%) from general medicine journals, 3 of 15 (20.0%) from specialty medicine journals, and 3 of 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews. Only 2 of 29 meta-analyses (6.9%) reported trial author FCOIs, and none reported trial author-industry employment.Protocol Publication: (https://osf.io/8xt5p/) Limitations: We examined only a relatively small number of meta-analyses from selected high-impact journals and compared results to a similarly small sample from an earlier time period.Conclusions: Reporting of drug trial sponsorship and author FCOIs in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals has increased since 2009 but is still suboptimal. Standards on reporting of trial funding described in the forthcoming revised PRISMA statement should be adapted and enforced by journals to improve reporting.

Authorial Conflicts of Interest and Sponsorship in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Psoriasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 247553032110206
Author(s):  
Micah Kee ◽  
Mary Greenough ◽  
J. Michael Anderson ◽  
Michael Weaver ◽  
Micah Hartwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Psoriasis Treatment ◽  
Research Outcomes ◽  
Cross Sectional Design ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Because industry influence – in the form of study sponsorship and authorial conflicts of interest (COI) – can bias the results and conclusions of systematic reviews, there is a need to understand their role in systematic reviews, particularly for common conditions like psoriasis. Objectives: This study identifies conflicts of interest and industry-author relationships in systematic reviews on psoriasis treatment. Methods: Consistent with our cross-sectional design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on psoriasis treatment. We then performed a subgroup analysis to determine further industry ties within the systemic reviews funded by industry. Results: Our study consisted of 27 systematic reviews and meta-analyses by 146 researchers. We found that 22 (81.5%) of the included systematic reviews contained at least 1 conflicted author. Six authors (of 47; 4.1%) disclosed all COI within the systematic review, 23 (of 47; 15.7%) partially disclosed COI but were also found to have undisclosed COI, and 18 (of 47; 12.3%) did not disclose any COI. Thirteen (of 22; 59.1%) contained narratives that favored the treatment group and 19 (of 22; 86.4%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Importantly, 3 systematic reviews were industry-sponsored. In terms of our subgroup analysis, we found several additional industry ties within the primary studies. Conclusion: Our study calls attention to conflicts of interest, industry sponsorship, and their influence on research outcomes in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Further, we provide examples of how specific industry ties can influence systematic reviews and recommendations for reporting.

Hotspots in Psychology – 2020 Edition

2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Michael Bošnjak ◽  
Nadine Wedderhoff
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
The Common ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract. This editorial gives a brief introduction to the six articles included in the fourth “Hotspots in Psychology” of the Zeitschrift für Psychologie. The format is devoted to systematic reviews and meta-analyses in research-active fields that have generated a considerable number of primary studies. The common denominator is the research synthesis nature of the included articles, and not a specific psychological topic or theme that all articles have to address. Moreover, methodological advances in research synthesis methods relevant for any subfield of psychology are being addressed. Comprehensive supplemental material to the articles can be found in PsychArchives ( https://www.psycharchives.org ).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document