scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Reporting of conflict of interest and sponsorship in dental journals.

TL;DR: Sponsorship and COI information seem to be underreported in dental journals and efforts should be made by authors, journals, and publishers to provide more comprehensive information to allow the reader to understand the potential impact of sponsorship andCOI on study results.
About: This article is published in Journal of Dentistry.The article was published on 2020-11-01. It has received 9 citations till now.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: While the majority of the papers had a COI disclosure, the prevalence of the other transparency practices was far from the acceptable level and a much stronger commitment to open science practices, particularly to preregistration, data and code sharing, is needed.
Abstract: Objective We aimed to assess the adherence to transparency practices (data availability, code availability, statements of protocol registration and conflicts of interest and funding disclosures) and FAIRness (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) of shared data from open access COVID-19-related articles published in dental journals available from the Europe PubMed Central (PMC) database. Methods We searched and exported all COVID-19-related open-access articles from PubMed-indexed dental journals available in the Europe PMC database in 2020 and 2021. We detected transparency indicators with a validated and automated tool developed to extract the indicators from the downloaded articles. Basic journal- and article-related information was retrieved from the PMC database. Then, from those which had shared data, we assessed their accordance with FAIR data principles using the F-UJI online tool (f-uji.net). Results Of 650 available articles published in 59 dental journals, 74% provided conflicts of interest disclosure and 40% funding disclosure and 4% were preregistered. One study shared raw data (0.15%) and no study shared code. Transparent practices were more common in articles published in journals with higher impact factors, and in 2020 than in 2021. Adherence to the FAIR principles in the only paper that shared data was moderate. Conclusion While the majority of the papers had a COI disclosure, the prevalence of the other transparency practices was far from the acceptable level. A much stronger commitment to open science practices, particularly to preregistration, data and code sharing, is needed from all stakeholders.

4 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper , a convenience sample of pharmacy researchers from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region was surveyed for their awareness and perception about the principles of conflict of interest and the factors affecting their disclosure of COI.
Abstract: The literature has shown some bias in research about the effectiveness and efficacy of medications due to the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. Thus, researchers’ understanding of conflict of interest (COI) is substantial and may influence the quality of scientific research. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to assess pharmacy researchers’ awareness and perception about COI in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and the factors affecting their disclosure of COI. In this cross-sectional study, a convenience sample of pharmacy researchers from the MENA region was surveyed for their awareness and perception about the principles of COI. The questionnaire was divided into three main sections. The first section assesses the demographic information of the study participants; the second section assesses researchers’ awareness and practices in dealing with COI; and, finally, the third section assesses participants’ perception about COI. The questionnaire was uploaded on the Google Forms electronic platform, and it was distributed to the potential study participants via their professional emails. Finally, logistic analysis was used to evaluate predictors affecting COI disclosure by the study participants. A total of 271 pharmacy researchers participated in this study. Researchers were distributed based on their academic rank as follows: 63 professors (23.3%), 59 associate professors (21.8%), 97 assistant professors (35.8%), and 52 lecturers (19.2%). The majority of researchers indicated that they were familiar with the concept of COI (88.9%), and they agreed that the existence of COI should be disclosed by all authors (84.5%). About 33.2% of the study participants did not know if their institution had a policy for COI. About half of the participants (48.70%) believed that disclosure is the only way for the management of COI. However, only 41.7% of them (n = 113) indicated that they had disclosed COI in their published research. Finally, participants who have a collaboration with the industry showed a significantly lower tendency to disclose their COI than those who do not have any partnership with the industry (OR = 0.471, p = 0.017). The majority of the pharmacy researchers from the MENA region are familiar with the principles of COI, but a lower percentage of them disclose their COI in their published research. Efforts should be made to educate researchers about the importance of disclosing COI, which might reduce the potential of bias in their published research.

2 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article , the authors identified and included all RCTs published from January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2021 in the two journals with the highest impact factors (Clarivate Analytics, 2020) from each of the following domains: Periodontology, Endodontics, Restorative Dentistry/ Prosthodontics and Orthodontic, Paediatric Dentistry, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.

2 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Clovis Mariano Faggion1
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluate the type of peer review blinding used in highly ranked dental journals and to discuss the influence of the blinding approaches on the peer review process and find that the majority of highly ranked journals had single-and double-blind peer review; journals with higher IFs presented single-blind review and those with lower IFs reported doubleblind review.
Abstract: Objectives To evaluate the type of peer review blinding used in highly ranked dental journals and to discuss the influence of the blinding approaches on the peer review process.Methods All 91 dental journals classified by impact factor (IF) had their websites scrutinised for the type of peer review blinding used for submissions. If the information was not reported, the journals were contacted to obtain the information. Linear and logistic regression were applied to evaluate the association between type of peer review blinding and IF.Results The selected journals reported the following peer review blinding approaches: single-blind (N = 36, 39.6%), double-blind (N = 46, 50.5%), transparent (N = 2, 2.2%) and open (N = 1, 1.1%). Information from six (6.6%) journals was not available. A linear regression analysis demonstrated that journals with lower IFs were associated with double-blind review (p = 0.001). A logistic regression suggested lower odds of association between single-blind peer review and journals with IFs below a threshold of 2 (odds ratio 0.157, confidence interval 0.059 to 0.417, p <0.001).Conclusions The majority of highly ranked dental journals had single- and double-blind peer review; journals with higher IFs presented single-blind peer review and those with lower IFs reported double-blind peer review.

2 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

25,711 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
24 Mar 2010-BMJ
TL;DR: This update of the CONSORT statement improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias.
Abstract: Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

5,957 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.
Abstract: Background Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor’s product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. This review is an update using more stringent methodology and also investigating sponsorship of device studies. Objectives To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship. Search methods We searched MEDLINE (1948 to September 2010), EMBASE (1980 to September 2010), the Cochrane Methodology Register (Issue 4, 2010) and Web of Science (August 2011). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files. Selection criteria Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions. Data collection and analysis Two assessors identified potentially relevant papers, and a decision about final inclusion was made by all authors. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals). Main results Forty-eight papers were included. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, risk ratio (RR): 1.32 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21 to 1.44), harms results RR: 1.87 (95% CI: 1.54 to 2.27) and conclusions RR: 1.31 (95% CI: 1.20 to 1.44) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Ten papers reported on sponsorship and effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data. The results were heterogeneous; five papers found larger effect sizes in industry sponsored studies compared with non-industry sponsored studies and five papers did not find a difference in effect size. Only two papers (including 120 device studies) reported separate data for devices and we did not find a difference between drug and device studies on the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.23). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment and follow-up. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.32 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.65), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.70 to 1.01). Authors' conclusions Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

1,095 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Three main actions are warranted: academic institutions and funders should reward investigators who fully disseminate their research protocols, reports, and participant-level datasets, and standards for the content of protocols and full study reports should be rigorously developed and adopted for all types of health research.

668 citations

Related Papers (5)