The impact of funding on the quality and interpretation of systematic reviews of mechanical thrombectomy in stroke patients

Abstract

Background

Funding may impact the quality and findings of systematic reviews (SRs). We aimed to compare the methodological quality of funded and non-funded SRs that investigated the outcomes in ischemic stroke patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search strategy in different databases, including Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline (including epub ahead of print, in-process & other non-indexed citations), PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection to retrieve all relevant SRs. Random sequence generation matched each funded SR with a non-funded one. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2 tool was used to assess the bias and quality of the included SRs. We also used uni- and multivariate analysis to perform our analysis, and results were expressed in odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

We retrieved 150 articles, which were randomized and matched into 100 SRs, including 50 funded and 50 non-funded studies. By multivariate analysis, we found that including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (OR: 5.7; 95% CI: 1.8–17.8; p = 0.003) and reporting conflict of interests (OR: 5.2; 95 CI: 1.1–24; p = 0.036) were the only significant differences between funded and non-funded SRs. No significant differences were found regarding the overall confidence for low-quality (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.09–3.2; p = 0.49) and moderate/high-quality SRs (OR: 0.17; 95% CI: 0.02–1.87; p = 0.14).

Conclusion

Funded studies tend to include RCTs more often and report conflict of interests with no significant impact on overall confidence.

Keywords

funding thrombectomy systematic review stroke

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chalmers

Glasziou

. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet (London, England) 2009; 374: 86–89.

Cook

Mulrow

Haynes

. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 376–380.

Higgins

. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0. 1. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://www cochrane-handbook org. 2008.

Tian

, et al. Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 93: 45–55.

Sideri

Papageorgiou

Eliades

. Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 100: 103–110.

Sun

Zhou

Zhang

, et al. Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer's disease: general implications of the findings. J Nurs Scholarsh 2019; 51: 308–316.

Sharma

Oremus

. PRISMA and AMSTAR show systematic reviews on health literacy and cancer screening are of good quality. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 99: 123–131.

Wasiak

Tyack

Ware

, et al. Jr. Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management. Int Wound J 2017; 14: 754–763.

Hansen

Lundh

Rasmussen

, et al. Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 8.

10.

Pieper

Hellbrecht

Zhao

, et al. Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality and interpretation of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016–2019. 2022 2022/04/03/.

11.

Lane

Higgins

Anagnostelis

, et al. Methodological quality of meta-analyses: matched-pairs comparison over time and between industry-sponsored and academic-sponsored reports. Res Synth Methods 2013; 4: 342–350.

12.

Jørgensen

Hilden

Gøtzsche

. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 2006; 333: 782.

13.

Jørgensen

Maric

Tendal

, et al. Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: differences in methodological quality and conclusions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008; 8: 60.

14.

Jadad

Moher

Browman

, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ 2000; 320: 537–540.

15.

Barnes

Bero

. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 1998; 279: 1566–1570.

16.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 1006–1012.

17.

Shea

Reeves

Wells

, et al. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008.

18.

Shea

Grimshaw

Wells

, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 10.

19.

Team

. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017.

20.

Akoglu

. User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med 2018; 18: 91–93.

21.

Schober

Boer

Schwarte

. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg 2018; 126: 1763–1768.

22.

Sacks

Berrier

Reitman

, et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 450–455.

23.

Mulrow

. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106: 485–488.

24.

Oxman

Guyatt

. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44: 1271–1278.

25.

Kung

Chiappelli

Cajulis

, et al. From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. Open Dent J 2010; 4: 84–91.

26.

Moher

Cook

Eastwood

, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 1999; 354: 1896–1900.

27.

Whiting

Savović

Higgins

, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 69: 225–234.

28.

Pussegoda

Turner

Garritty

, et al. Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study. Syst Rev 2017; 6: 117.

29.

Pieper

Buechter

Jerinic

, et al. Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2012; 65: 1267–1273.

30.

Pieper

Puljak

González-Lorenzo

, et al. Minor differences were found between AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS in the assessment of systematic reviews including both randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2019; 108: 26–33.

31.

Lorenz

Matthias

Pieper

, et al. A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool. J Clin Epidemiol 2019; 114: 133–140.

32.

Gates

Duarte

, et al. Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 125: 9–15.

33.

Barton

. Which clinical studies provide the best evidence? The best RCT still trumps the best observational study. BMJ 2000; 321: 255–256.

34.

Remschmidt

Wichmann

Harder

. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination. Vaccine 2014; 32: 1678–1684.

35.

Jaca

Ndze

Wiysonge

. Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage using AMSTAR and ROBIS checklists. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2019; 15: 2824–2835.

36.

De Vito

Manzoli

Marzuillo

, et al. A systematic review evaluating the potential for bias and the methodological quality of meta-analyses in vaccinology. Vaccine 2007; 25: 8794–8806.

37.

Lundh

Lexchin

Mintzes

, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 2: Mr000033.

38.

Chartres

Fabbri

Bero

. Association of industry sponsorship with outcomes of nutrition studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2016; 176: 1769–1777.

39.

Gøtzsche

Ioannidis

. Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses? BMJ 2012; 345: e7031.

40.

Pussegoda

Turner

Garritty

, et al. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev 2017; 6: 131.

41.

Sequeira-Byron

Fedorowicz

Jagannath

, et al. An AMSTAR assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the journal of applied oral science (JAOS). J Appl Oral Sci 2011; 19: 440–447.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB

0.42 MB