Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Dec;80:43-49. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.010. Epub 2016 Jul 25.

Financial competing interests were associated with favorable conclusions and greater author productivity in nonsystematic reviews of neuraminidase inhibitors.

Author information

1
Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales 2109, Australia. Electronic address: adam.dunn@mq.edu.au.
2
Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales 2109, Australia; School of Management and Enterprise, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia.
3
Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Department of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
4
Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales 2109, Australia.
5
Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Computational Health Informatics Program, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
6
Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Department of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Computational Health Informatics Program, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To characterize the conclusions and production of nonsystematic reviews about neuraminidase inhibitors relative to financial competing interests held by the authors.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:

We searched for articles about neuraminidase inhibitors and influenza (January 2005 to April 2015), identifying nonsystematic reviews and grading them according to the favorable/nonfavorable presentation of evidence on safety and efficacy. We recorded financial competing interests disclosed in the reviews and from other articles written by their authors. We measured associations between competing interests, author productivity, and conclusions.

RESULTS:

Among 213 nonsystematic reviews, 138 (65%) presented favorable conclusions. Financial competing interests were identified for 26% (137/532) of authors; 51% (108/213) of reviews were associated with a financial competing interest. Reviews produced exclusively by authors with financial competing interests (33%; 71/213) were more likely to present favorable conclusions than reviews with no competing interests (risk ratio 1.27; 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.55). Authors with financial competing interests published more articles about neuraminidase inhibitors than their counterparts.

CONCLUSION:

Half of nonsystematic reviews about neuraminidase inhibitors included an author with a financial competing interest. Reviews produced exclusively by these authors were more likely to present favorable conclusions, and authors with financial competing interests published a greater number of reviews.

KEYWORDS:

Bibliometrics; Competing interests; Neuraminidase inhibitors; Oseltamivir; Review literature as topic; Zanamivir

PMID:
27460462
DOI:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.010
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center