Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study

BMJ Open. 2020 May 11;10(5):e035633. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035633.

Abstract

Objective: To (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author-industry financial ties and author-industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (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.

Design: Review of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses.

Data sources: MEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018.

Eligibility criteria for selecting articles: We 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% 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 (OR) 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 since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses.

Keywords: epidemiology; medical ethics; statistics & research methods.

MeSH terms

  • Authorship*
  • Conflict of Interest*
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Drug Industry / economics
  • Drug Industry / ethics*
  • Employment
  • Humans
  • Meta-Analysis as Topic*
  • Odds Ratio
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / economics
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / ethics*
  • Research Support as Topic / ethics*