Abstract
Objective
To characterize the conclusions and production of nonsystematic reviews about neuraminidase
inhibitors relative to financial competing interests held by the authors.
Study Design and Setting
We searched for articles about neuraminidase inhibitors and influenza (January 2005
to April 2015), identifying nonsystematic reviews and grading them according to the
favorable/nonfavorable presentation of evidence on safety and efficacy. We recorded
financial competing interests disclosed in the reviews and from other articles written
by their authors. We measured associations between competing interests, author productivity,
and conclusions.
Results
Among 213 nonsystematic reviews, 138 (65%) presented favorable conclusions. Financial
competing interests were identified for 26% (137/532) of authors; 51% (108/213) of
reviews were associated with a financial competing interest. Reviews produced exclusively
by authors with financial competing interests (33%; 71/213) were more likely to present
favorable conclusions than reviews with no competing interests (risk ratio 1.27; 95%
confidence interval 1.03–1.55). Authors with financial competing interests published
more articles about neuraminidase inhibitors than their counterparts.
Conclusion
Half of nonsystematic reviews about neuraminidase inhibitors included an author with
a financial competing interest. Reviews produced exclusively by these authors were
more likely to present favorable conclusions, and authors with financial competing
interests published a greater number of reviews.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?.PLoS Med. 2010; 7: e1000326
- On the impossibility of being expert.BMJ. 2010; 341: c6815
- Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials.BMJ. 2001; 323: 42-46
- Guidelines for reading literature reviews.CMAJ. 1988; 138: 697-703
- The medical review article: state of the science.Ann Intern Med. 1987; 106: 485-488
- Comparison of systematic and narrative reviews: the example of the atypical antipsychotics.Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2003; 12: 146-153
- Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions.Ann Intern Med. 1997; 126: 376-380
- Narrative impressions of literature: the availability bias and the corrective properties of meta-analytic approaches.Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2001; 27: 1123-1130
- Industry sponsorship and selection of comparators in randomized clinical trials.Eur J Clin Invest. 2010; 40: 172-182
- Frequency, nature, effects, and correlates of conflicts of interest in published clinical cancer research.Cancer. 2009; 115: 2783-2791
- Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.JAMA. 2003; 289: 454-465
- Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials.J Gen Intern Med. 1986; 1: 155-158
- Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review of systematic reviews.PLoS Med. 2013; 10: e1001578
- Financial conflicts of interest and conclusions about neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza: an analysis of systematic reviews.Ann Intern Med. 2014; 161: 513-518
- Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; : MR000035
- Conflicts of interest in cardiovascular clinical practice guidelines.Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171: 577-584
- Conflict of interest in clinical practice guideline development: a systematic Review.PLoS One. 2011; 6: e25153
- Why we can't trust clinical guidelines.BMJ. 2013; 346: f3830
- Oseltamivir for influenza in adults and children: systematic review of clinical study reports and summary of regulatory comments.BMJ. 2014; 348: g2545
- Zanamivir for influenza in adults and children: systematic review of clinical study reports and summary of regulatory comments.BMJ. 2014; 348: g2547
- Questions remain over safety and effectiveness of oseltamivir.BMJ. 2012; 344: e467
- Oseltamivir in seasonal, pandemic, and avian influenza: a comprehensive review of 10-years clinical experience.Adv Ther. 2011; 28: 927-959
- Effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors in reducing mortality in patients admitted to hospital with influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection: a meta-analysis of individual participant data.Lancet Respir Med. 2014; 2: 395-404
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 264-269
- Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists.N Engl J Med. 1998; 338: 101-106
- The haunting of medical journals: how ghostwriting sold “HRT”.PLoS Med. 2010; 7: e10800335
- Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review.BMJ. 2010; 340: c1344
- How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network.BMJ. 2009; 339: b2680
- Understanding belief using citation networks.J Eval Clin Pract. 2011; 17: 389-393
- Citations alone were enough to predict favorable conclusions in reviews of neuraminidase inhibitors.J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68: 87-93
- Walking the Tightrope of Academia–Industry Relationships.Ann Intern Med. 2015; 163: 477-478
- Partisan perspectives in the medical literature: a study of high frequency editorialists favoring hormone replacement therapy.J Gen Intern Med. 2010; 25: 914-919
- Under-reporting of conflicts of interest among trialists: a cross-sectional study.J R Soc Med. 2014; 108: 101-107
- Underreporting of conflicts of interest in clinical practice guidelines: cross sectional study.BMC Med Ethics. 2013; 14: 19
- The physician payment sunshine act: testing the value of transparency.JAMA. 2015; 313: 23-24
- Toward a harmonized and centralized conflict of interest disclosure: progress from an IOM initiative.JAMA. 2012; 308: 2093-2094
- Act II of the sunshine act.PLoS Med. 2014; 11: e1001754
- Revisiting the commercial-academic interface in medical journals.BMJ. 2015; 350: h2957
- Does conflict of interest disclosure worsen bias?.PLoS Med. 2012; 9: e1001210
- Beyond moral outrage—weighing the trade-offs of COI regulation.NEJM. 2015; 372: 2064-2068
- Estimates of the continuously publishing core in the scientific workforce.PLoS One. 2014; 9: e101698
- Productivity of authors in the field of diabetes: bibliographic analysis of trial publications.BMJ. 2015; 351: h2638
Article info
Publication history
Published online: July 23, 2016
Accepted:
July 18,
2016
Footnotes
Funding: The research was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, project grant 1045065.
Conflict of interest: None.
Identification
Copyright
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
