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.
PaulMLeiboviciL. Systematic review or meta-analysis? Their place in the evidence hierarchy. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(2):97–100.
7.
BusardCZweegersJLimpensJLangendamMSpulsPI. Combined use of systemic agents for psoriasis: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150(11):1213–1220.
8.
MazaAMontaudiéHSbidianE, et al.Oral cyclosporin in psoriasis: a systematic review on treatment modalities, risk of kidney toxicity and evidence for use in non-plaque psoriasis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011;25(Suppl 2):19–27.
9.
AtwanAIngramJRAbbottR, et al.Oral fumaric acid esters for psoriasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(8):CD010497.
10.
DrazenJM. Revisiting the commercial–academic interface. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(19):1853–1854.
11.
MarshallDCJacksonMEHattangadi-GluthJA. Disclosure of industry payments to physicians: an epidemiologic analysis of early data from the open payments program. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91(1):84–96.
12.
AhnRWoodbridgeAAbrahamA, et al.Financial ties of principal investigators and randomized controlled trial outcomes: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2017;356:i6770.
13.
BauchnerHFontanarosaPBFlanaginA. Conflicts of interests, authors, and journals: new challenges for a persistent problem. JAMA. 2018;320(22):2315–2318.
14.
FengHWuPLegerM. Exploring the industry-dermatologist financial relationship: insight from the open payment data. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152(12):1307–1313.
15.
MitchellAPBaschEMDusetzinaSB. Financial relationships with industry among national comprehensive cancer network guideline authors. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(12):1628–1631.
16.
TaylorRGilesJ. Cash interests taint drug advice. Nature. 2005;437(7062):1070–1071.
17.
WayantCVassarM. 3 A review of the magnitude of financial relationships with industry and disclosure practices among clinical practice guideline authors. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. 2019;24(Suppl 1):A2.
18.
BeroL. Industry sponsorship and research outcome: a Cochrane review. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):580–581.
19.
KeeMAndersonMWeaverMVassarM.Evidence of financial conflicts of interest in authors of psoriasis related systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Published 2020. Accessed August 24, 2020. https://osf.io/b268r/
MuradMHWangZ. Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research. Evid Based Med. 2017;22(4):139–142.
22.
Psoriasis Protocol. Published 2020. Accessed November 14, 2020. https://osf.io/8hxq3/
23.
ShamseerLMoherDClarkeM, et al.Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647.
24.
of Medical Journal Editors IC, Others. ICMJE form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. 2015-09-06]. Published 2012. Accessed May 26, 2021. http://www.icmje.org/downloads/coi_disclosure.pdf.
25.
MandrioliDKearnsCEBeroLA. Relationship between research outcomes and risk of bias, study sponsorship, and author financial conflicts of interest in reviews of the effects of artificially sweetened beverages on weight outcomes: a Systematic review of reviews. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(9):e0162198. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162198
26.
WitjesHKhatriADiderichsenPMMandemaJOthmanAA. Meta-analyses of clinical efficacy of risankizumab and adalimumab in chronic plaque psoriasis: Supporting evidence of risankizumab superiority. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107(2):435–442.
27.
KhanNRSaadHOravecCS, et al.A Review of industry funding in randomized controlled trials published in the neurosurgical literature-the elephant in the room. Neurosurgery. 2018;83(5):890–897.
28.
DevaiahAMurchisonC. Characteristics of NIH- and industry-sponsored head and neck cancer clinical trials. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(9):E300–E303.
29.
FlaccoMEManzoliLBocciaS, et al.Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(7):811–820.
30.
LundhALexchinJMintzesBSchrollJBBeroL. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2:MR000033.
31.
RosemanMMiletteKBeroLA, et al.Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments. JAMA. 2011;305(10):1008–1017.
32.
EbrahimSBanceSAthaleAMalachowskiCIoannidisJPA. Meta-analyses with industry involvement are massively published and report no caveats for antidepressants. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:155–163.
33.
UrquhartL. Top drugs and companies by sales in 2018. Nat Rev Drug Discov. Published online March 12, 2019. doi:10.1038/d41573-019-00049-0
LubowitzJHBrandJCRossiMJ. Medical device and pharmaceutical industry employees as medical research publication authors. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(10):2745–2747.
38.
FriedmanLSRichterED. Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(1):51–56.
39.
HansenCLundhARasmussenKHróbjartssonA. Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;8:MR000047.
40.
CumpstonMLiTPageMJ, et al.Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10:ED000142.
41.
FladieIAAdewumiTMVoNHTritzDJVassarMB. An Evaluation of nephrology literature for transparency and reproducibility indicators: cross-sectional review. Kidney Int Rep. 2020;5(2):173–181.
42.
JohnsonALTorgersonTSkinnerMHamiltonTTritzDVassarM. An assessment of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in otolaryngology. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(8):1894–1901.
43.
SherryCEPollardJZTritzDCarrBKPierceAVassarM. Assessment of transparent and reproducible research practices in the psychiatry literature. Gezsn Psychiatr. 2020;33(1):e100149.
44.
AndersonJMWrightBRauhS, et al.Evaluation of indicators supporting reproducibility and transparency within cardiology literature. Heart. Published online August 21, 2020. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2020-316519
45.
OkonyaORorahDTritzDUmberhamBWileyMVassarM. Analysis of practices to promote reproducibility and transparency in anaesthesiology research. Br J Anaesth. 2020;125(5):835–842.
46.
WrightBDVoNNolanJ, et al.An analysis of key indicators of reproducibility in radiology. Insights Imaging. 2020;11(1):65.
47.
AdewumiMTVoNTritzDBeamanJVassarM. Lack of reproducibility in addiction medicine. PsyArXiv. Preprint published online August 19, 2019. doi:10.31234/osf.io/9htca.
48.
WaltersCGHarterZJWayantC, et al.Reproducibility and transparency characteristics of oncology research evidence. medRxiv. Preprint published online July 14, 2019. doi:10.1101/19001917.
49.
SmithCANolanJTritzDJ, et al.Evaluation of reproducible and transparent research practices in pulmonology. Pulmonology. 2021;27(2):134–143.
50.
WayantCPageMJVassarM. Evaluation of reproducible research practices in oncology systematic reviews with meta-analyses referenced by national comprehensive cancer network guidelines. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(11):1550–1555.
51.
KoffelJBRethlefsenML. Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163309.
52.
BiocicMFidahicMPuljakL. Reproducibility of search strategies of non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in anaesthesiology journals is suboptimal: primary methodological study. Br J Anaesth. 2019;122(6):e79–e81. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2019.02.014
53.
LaytonD. A Critical review of search strategies used in recent systematic reviews published in selected prosthodontic and implant-related journals: are systematic reviews actually systematic?Int J Prosthodont. Published online 2017:30(1):13–21. doi:10.11607/ijp.5193
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.
