Yan Li

Bio: Yan Li is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Meta-analysis. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 2 publications receiving 1444 citations.

Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review

Abstract: ContextDespite increasing awareness about the potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on biomedical research, no comprehensive synthesis of the body of evidence relating to financial conflicts of interest has been performed.ObjectiveTo review original, quantitative studies on the extent, impact, and management of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research.Data SourcesStudies were identified by searching MEDLINE (January 1980-October 2002), the Web of Science citation database, references of articles, letters, commentaries, editorials, and books and by contacting experts.Study SelectionAll English-language studies containing original, quantitative data on financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions were included. A total of 1664 citations were screened, 144 potentially eligible full articles were retrieved, and 37 studies met our inclusion criteria.Data ExtractionOne investigator (J.E.B.) extracted data from each of the 37 studies. The main outcomes were the prevalence of specific types of industry relationships, the relation between industry sponsorship and study outcome or investigator behavior, and the process for disclosure, review, and management of financial conflicts of interest.Data SynthesisApproximately one fourth of investigators have industry affiliations, and roughly two thirds of academic institutions hold equity in start-ups that sponsor research performed at the same institutions. Eight articles, which together evaluated 1140 original studies, assessed the relation between industry sponsorship and outcome in original research. Aggregating the results of these articles showed a statistically significant association between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions (pooled Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio, 3.60; 95% confidence interval, 2.63-4.91). Industry sponsorship was also associated with restrictions on publication and data sharing. The approach to managing financial conflicts varied substantially across academic institutions and peer-reviewed journals.ConclusionsFinancial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions are widespread. Conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways.

Genetics of autism spectrum disorder: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Abstract: Abstract Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a class of neurodevelopmental conditions with a large epidemiological and societal impact worldwide. To date, numerous studies have investigated the associations between genetic variants and ASD risk. To provide a robust synthesis of published evidence of candidate gene studies for ASD, we performed an umbrella review (UR) of meta-analyses of genetic studies for ASD (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021221868). We systematically searched eight English and Chinese databases from inception to March 31, 2022. Reviewing of eligibility, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by two authors. In total, 28 of 5062 retrieved articles were analyzed, which investigated a combined 41 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of nine candidate genes. Overall, 12 significant SNPs of CNTNAP2 , MTHFR , OXTR , SLC25A12 , and VDR were identified, of which associations with suggestive evidence included the C677T polymorphism of MTHFR (under allelic, dominant, and heterozygote models) and the rs731236 polymorphism of VDR (under allelic and homozygote models). Associations with weak evidence included the rs2710102 polymorphism of CNTNAP2 (under allelic, homozygote, and recessive models), the rs7794745 polymorphism of CNTNAP2 (under dominant and heterozygote models), the C677T polymorphism of MTHFR (under homozygote model), and the rs731236 polymorphism of VDR (under dominant and recessive models). Our UR summarizes research evidence on the genetics of ASD and provides a broad and detailed overview of risk genes for ASD. The rs2710102 and rs7794745 polymorphisms of CNTNAP2 , C677T polymorphism of MTHFR , and rs731236 polymorphism of VDR may confer ASD risks. This study will provide clinicians and healthcare decision-makers with evidence-based information about the most salient candidate genes relevant to ASD and recommendations for future treatment, prevention, and research.

Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in

Abstract: Correction Contact me if this article is corrected. Citations Contact me when this article is cited. This article has been cited 420 times. Topic collections Contact me when new articles are published in these topic areas. Medical Practice; Conflict of Interest; Statistics and Research Methods; Review Related Letters . 2003;289(19):2502. JAMA Anna M. Sawka et al. Effect of Industry Sponsorship on the Results of Biomedical Research

SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials

Abstract: High quality protocols facilitate proper conduct, reporting, and external review of clinical trials. However, the completeness of trial protocols is often inadequate. To help improve the content and quality of protocols, an international group of stakeholders developed the SPIRIT 2013 Statement (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials). The SPIRIT Statement provides guidance in the form of a checklist of recommended items to include in a clinical trial protocol. This SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides important information to promote full understanding of the checklist recommendations. For each checklist item, we provide a rationale and detailed description; a model example from an actual protocol; and relevant references supporting its importance. We strongly recommend that this explanatory paper be used in conjunction with the SPIRIT Statement. A website of resources is also available (www.spirit-statement.org). The SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper, together with the Statement, should help with the drafting of trial protocols. Complete documentation of key trial elements can facilitate transparency and protocol review for the benefit of all stakeholders.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalizability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies, and 4 are specific to each of the 3 study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors, and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, 1 or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (www.strobe-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.

Abstract: Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalizability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers.This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review

Abstract: Objective To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support Methods Medline (January 1966 to December 2002) and Embase (January 1980 to December 2002) searches were supplemented with material identified in the references and in the authors' personal files Data were independently abstracted by three of the authors and disagreements were resolved by consensus Results 30 studies were included Research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published than research funded by other sources Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors (odds ratio 405; 95% confidence interval 298 to 551; 18 comparisons) None of the 13 studies that analysed methods reported that studies funded by industry was of poorer quality Conclusion Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias