Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: A previous study found that only 30% of Cochrane reviews of drug trials published in 2010 reported the funding source of some or all included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 7% reported trial author-industry financial ties, and 7% reported trial author-industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved since Cochrane implemented a policy to require reporting in 2012 or how Cochrane meta-analyses compare to non-Cochrane meta-analyses.
Objectives: Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author-industry financial ties, and author-industry employment from included RCTs, comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010.
Methods: We searched PubMed on October 19, 2018 and selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥ 2 RCTs, and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs.
Results: 90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author-industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference, 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference, 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio for reporting trial funding was ≤ 0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI, 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author-industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI, 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI, 2% to 19%).
Conclusions: Reporting of trial funding sources, trial author-industry financial ties, and trial author-industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved substantially since 2010 and is much higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses. Reporting requirements similar to those of Cochrane should be implemented and enforced by other journals.
Objectives: Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author-industry financial ties, and author-industry employment from included RCTs, comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010.
Methods: We searched PubMed on October 19, 2018 and selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥ 2 RCTs, and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs.
Results: 90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author-industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference, 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference, 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio for reporting trial funding was ≤ 0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI, 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author-industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI, 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI, 2% to 19%).
Conclusions: Reporting of trial funding sources, trial author-industry financial ties, and trial author-industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved substantially since 2010 and is much higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses. Reporting requirements similar to those of Cochrane should be implemented and enforced by other journals.