Does type of funding affect reporting in network meta-analysis? A scoping review of network meta-analyses.
Funding bias
Industry-funding
Multiple treatment meta-analysis
Network meta-analysis
Sponsorship
Journal
Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 05 2023
06 05 2023
Historique:
received:
27
01
2023
accepted:
06
04
2023
medline:
8
5
2023
pubmed:
7
5
2023
entrez:
6
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Evidence has shown that private industry-sponsored randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses are more likely to report intervention-favourable results compared with other sources of funding. However, this has not been assessed in network meta-analyses (NMAs). To (a) explore the recommendation rate of industry-sponsored NMAs on their company's intervention, and (b) assess reporting in NMAs of pharmacologic interventions according to their funding type. Design: Scoping review of published NMAs with RCTs. We used a pre-existing NMA database including 1,144 articles from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, published between January 2013 and July 2018. NMAs with transparent funding information and comparing pharmacologic interventions with/without placebo. We captured whether NMAs recommended their own or another company's intervention, classified NMAs according to their primary outcome findings (i.e., statistical significance and direction of effect), and according to the overall reported conclusion. We assessed reporting using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension to NMA (PRISMA-NMA) 32-item checklist. We matched and compared industry with non-industry NMAs having the same research question, disease, primary outcome, and pharmacologic intervention against placebo/control. We retrieved 658 NMAs, which reported a median of 23 items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist (interquartile range [IQR]: 21-26). NMAs were categorized as 314 publicly-sponsored (PRISMA-NMA median 24.5, IQR 22-27), 208 non-sponsored (PRISMA-NMA median 23, IQR 20-25), and 136 industry/mixed-sponsored NMAs (PRISMA-NMA median 21, IQR 19-24). Most industry-sponsored NMAs recommended their own manufactured drug (92%), suggested a statistically significant positive treatment-effect for their drug (82%), and reported an overall positive conclusion (92%). Our matched NMAs (25 industry vs 25 non-industry) indicated that industry-sponsored NMAs had favourable conclusions more often (100% vs 80%) and were associated with larger (but not statistically significantly different) efficacy effect sizes (in 61% of NMAs) compared with non-industry-sponsored NMAs. Differences in completeness of reporting and author characteristics were apparent among NMAs with different types of funding. Publicly-sponsored NMAs had the best reporting and published their findings in higher impact-factor journals. Knowledge users should be mindful of this potential funding bias in NMAs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Evidence has shown that private industry-sponsored randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses are more likely to report intervention-favourable results compared with other sources of funding. However, this has not been assessed in network meta-analyses (NMAs).
OBJECTIVES
To (a) explore the recommendation rate of industry-sponsored NMAs on their company's intervention, and (b) assess reporting in NMAs of pharmacologic interventions according to their funding type.
METHODS
Design: Scoping review of published NMAs with RCTs.
INFORMATION SOURCES
We used a pre-existing NMA database including 1,144 articles from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, published between January 2013 and July 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
NMAs with transparent funding information and comparing pharmacologic interventions with/without placebo.
SYNTHESIS
We captured whether NMAs recommended their own or another company's intervention, classified NMAs according to their primary outcome findings (i.e., statistical significance and direction of effect), and according to the overall reported conclusion. We assessed reporting using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension to NMA (PRISMA-NMA) 32-item checklist. We matched and compared industry with non-industry NMAs having the same research question, disease, primary outcome, and pharmacologic intervention against placebo/control.
RESULTS
We retrieved 658 NMAs, which reported a median of 23 items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist (interquartile range [IQR]: 21-26). NMAs were categorized as 314 publicly-sponsored (PRISMA-NMA median 24.5, IQR 22-27), 208 non-sponsored (PRISMA-NMA median 23, IQR 20-25), and 136 industry/mixed-sponsored NMAs (PRISMA-NMA median 21, IQR 19-24). Most industry-sponsored NMAs recommended their own manufactured drug (92%), suggested a statistically significant positive treatment-effect for their drug (82%), and reported an overall positive conclusion (92%). Our matched NMAs (25 industry vs 25 non-industry) indicated that industry-sponsored NMAs had favourable conclusions more often (100% vs 80%) and were associated with larger (but not statistically significantly different) efficacy effect sizes (in 61% of NMAs) compared with non-industry-sponsored NMAs.
CONCLUSIONS
Differences in completeness of reporting and author characteristics were apparent among NMAs with different types of funding. Publicly-sponsored NMAs had the best reporting and published their findings in higher impact-factor journals. Knowledge users should be mindful of this potential funding bias in NMAs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37149700
doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02235-z
pii: 10.1186/s13643-023-02235-z
pmc: PMC10163730
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Review
Meta-Analysis
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
81Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Lancet. 2008 Jul 19;372(9634):201
pubmed: 18640445
JAMA. 2003 Jan 22-29;289(4):454-65
pubmed: 12533125
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Feb;82:20-28
pubmed: 27864068
Am J Public Health. 2018 Nov;108(11):e9-e16
pubmed: 30252531
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Sep 20;165(6):421-30
pubmed: 27294570
Bull World Health Organ. 2016 Oct 1;94(10):782-784
pubmed: 27843171
Lancet. 2000 Oct 7;356(9237):1228-31
pubmed: 11072941
BMC Med. 2017 Jan 5;15(1):3
pubmed: 28052774
JAMA. 2003 Dec 17;290(23):3070-1; author reply 3071-2
pubmed: 14679267
PLoS Med. 2011 Mar;8(3):e1000425
pubmed: 21423581
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Sep 09;8:60
pubmed: 18782430
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 22;9(1):e86754
pubmed: 24466222
BMJ. 2014 Oct 03;349:g5741
pubmed: 25281681
Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):485-514
pubmed: 27620683
Saudi Med J. 2021 Aug;42(8):923
pubmed: 34344822
Syst Rev. 2020 Apr 8;9(1):77
pubmed: 32268911
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
BMJ. 2002 Aug 3;325(7358):249
pubmed: 12153921
BMJ. 2011 Aug 16;343:d4909
pubmed: 21846695
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):141-6
pubmed: 26134548
BMJ. 2003 Mar 1;326(7387):472
pubmed: 12609941
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Apr;66(4):371-8
pubmed: 23384590
JAMA. 2003 Aug 20;290(7):921-8
pubmed: 12928469
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005 Jun;131(6):479-80
pubmed: 15967878
J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Jun;50(6):683-91
pubmed: 9250266
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jun 2;162(11):777-84
pubmed: 26030634
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 16;2:MR000033
pubmed: 28207928
PLoS Med. 2007 Jun;4(6):e184
pubmed: 17550302
Ann Intern Med. 2014 Oct 7;161(7):513-8
pubmed: 25285542
BMJ. 2014 Oct 03;349:g5949
pubmed: 25281682
Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 10;10(1):246
pubmed: 34507621
BMC Med. 2011 Jun 27;9:79
pubmed: 21707969
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Apr;62(4):380-386.e1
pubmed: 19128940
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
BMJ. 2003 May 31;326(7400):1167-70
pubmed: 12775614
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;70:155-63
pubmed: 26399904
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
Clin Ther. 2022 Mar;44(3):374-388
pubmed: 34955232
BMJ. 2012 Jan 03;344:d7202
pubmed: 22214754
BMJ. 2007 Dec 8;335(7631):1202-5
pubmed: 18024482
BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 5;9(9):e031138
pubmed: 31492792
BMJ. 2006 Oct 14;333(7572):782
pubmed: 17028106
BMJ. 2014 Nov 04;349:g6579
pubmed: 25371223
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Aug 20;25(24):3609-14
pubmed: 17704409
JAMA. 2004 May 26;291(20):2457-65
pubmed: 15161896