Article type
Abstract
Objective: To assess the conflicts of interest (COIs) and the involvement of both funders and authors in the included studies of an ongoing Cochrane review on the topic of antipsychotics for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by implementing the new TACIT tool.
Methods: The Cochrane review included 17 randomized clinical trials, of which 13 were published (and 4 were available as a protocol registry with results). We used a prototype of TACIT (version 2.0, February 2023) for collecting, processing, and interpreting the data on COIs in the included trials. TACIT evaluates if COIs (of either funders or academic authors) raise notable concerns and if the available information is sufficient by analyzing different domains of COIs and a variety of information sources (beyond the primary publication).
Results: Overall, 14 (82.35%) trials were rated as having notable concerns about COI. Of these, 10 studies raised notable concerns on the involvement of funders with commercial COIs, whereas 11 trials were flawed with notable concerns regarding important COIs of academic authors (and in 4 of them, the concerning data were not disclosed in the primary publication, yet in other sources, ie, web searches). Regardless of the resulting judgments on COIs, in 14 studies the available information was at least insufficient, and the corresponding assessments were done indirectly according to the TACIT guidance.
Conclusions: Randomized clinical trials on atypical antipsychotics for ASD raise notable concerns about COI. TACIT is a valuable and promising tool to comprehensively address the COIs of primary studies included in systematic reviews.
Methods: The Cochrane review included 17 randomized clinical trials, of which 13 were published (and 4 were available as a protocol registry with results). We used a prototype of TACIT (version 2.0, February 2023) for collecting, processing, and interpreting the data on COIs in the included trials. TACIT evaluates if COIs (of either funders or academic authors) raise notable concerns and if the available information is sufficient by analyzing different domains of COIs and a variety of information sources (beyond the primary publication).
Results: Overall, 14 (82.35%) trials were rated as having notable concerns about COI. Of these, 10 studies raised notable concerns on the involvement of funders with commercial COIs, whereas 11 trials were flawed with notable concerns regarding important COIs of academic authors (and in 4 of them, the concerning data were not disclosed in the primary publication, yet in other sources, ie, web searches). Regardless of the resulting judgments on COIs, in 14 studies the available information was at least insufficient, and the corresponding assessments were done indirectly according to the TACIT guidance.
Conclusions: Randomized clinical trials on atypical antipsychotics for ASD raise notable concerns about COI. TACIT is a valuable and promising tool to comprehensively address the COIs of primary studies included in systematic reviews.