Correlation analysis of financial conflicts of interest and favourability of results or conclusions in addiction medicine systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify conflicts of interest, assess the accuracy of authors self-reporting them, and examine the association between conflicts of interest and favourability of results and discussions in addiction medicine systematic reviews. DESIGN: A search was performed on Medline (Ovid) from January 2016 to 25 April 2020 to locate systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on treatments of addiction disorders using a systematic search strategy. Data were extracted from each systematic review, including conflict of interest statements, authorship characteristics and the favourability of the results/conclusion sections. A search algorithm was used to identify any undisclosed conflicts of interest on the Open Payments Database (Dollars for Docs), Dollars for Profs, Google Patents/United States Patent and Trade Office, and prior conflict of interest statements in other published works from these authors. RESULTS: The search identified 127 systematic reviews, representing 665 unique authors. Of the 127 studies, 81 reported no authors with conflicts of interest, 28 with 1 or more conflict, and 18 had no conflict of interest statement. Additional non-disclosed conflicts of interest were found for 34 authors. There were 69 reviews that had at least one author with a conflict of interest. Of the 69 reviews, 14 (20.3%) reported favourable results and 26 (37.7%) reported favourable discussion/conclusions with no statistically significant association. A subanalysis was performed on publications with only US authors (51) with 35 (68.9%) having at least 1 conflict of interest. US authored studies that had a conflict of interest favoured the results (p = <0.001) and discussion/conclusion (p = 0.018) more often. CONCLUSION: Although multiple undisclosed financial conflicts of interest were found, there was no correlation with the favourability of the results or discussion/conclusions across all addiction medicine systematic reviews. Further research needs to be done on US-based publications and encourage disclosure systems worldwide to provide more accurate reporting.

Spin within systematic review abstracts on antiplatelet therapies after acute coronary syndrome: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Spin is a reporting practice in which study results are misrepresented by overestimating efficacy or underestimating harm. Prevalence of spin varies between clinical specialties, and estimates are based almost entirely on clinical trials. Little is known about spin in systematic reviews. DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional analysis searching MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to antiplatelet therapies following acute coronary syndrome on 2 June 2020. Data were extracted evaluating the presence of spin and study characteristics, including methodological quality as rated by A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). All data extraction was conducted in a masked, duplicate manner from 2 June 2020 to 26 June 2020. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Not applicable. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed abstracts of systematic reviews on antiplatelet therapy following acute coronary syndrome and evaluated the prevalence of the nine most severe types of spin. We additionally explored associations between spin and certain study characteristics, including quality. RESULTS: Our searches returned 15 263 articles, and 185 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. Of these 185 reviews, 31.9% (59/185) contained some form of spin in the abstract. Seven forms of spin (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9) among the nine most severe were identified. No instances of types 6 or 8 were found. There were no statistically significant relationships between spin and the evaluated study characteristics or AMSTAR-2 appraisals. CONCLUSIONS: Spin was present in abstracts for systematic reviews and meta-analyses; subsequent studies are needed to identify correlations between spin and specific study characteristics. There were no statistically significant associations between spin and study characteristics or AMSTAR-2 ratings; however, implementing changes will ensure that spin is reduced in the field of cardiology as well as other fields of medicine.

Reproducible Research Practices in the Plastic Surgery Literature.

BACKGROUND: Reproducible research-defined as the ability to replicate a study with its published materials and procedures-is integral to ensuring the validity of published studies and promoting scientific advancement. The primary aim of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the reproducibility and transparency of research in the plastic surgery literature. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed. Articles published in 12 plastic surgery journals over a 5-year period were randomly selected. Reproducibility-related and transparency-related variables were blindly and independently collected by two reviewers using previously published methods. Descriptive statistics and univariate analysis were performed for outcomes of interest. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 18,461 publications, from which 400 were randomly selected. A total of 397 publications met inclusion criteria, of which 203 were empirical studies eligible for analysis of reproducibility-related and transparency-related variables. Among the empirical studies, most did not have a data availability statement (97.0 percent; 95 percent CI, 93.7 to 98.9). Only seven (3.4 percent; 95 percent CI, 1.4 to 7.0) were linked to an accessible protocol, four (2.0 percent; 95 percent CI, 0.5 to 5.0) were preregistered, and no studies provided analysis scripts or claimed to replicate another study. Of the 202 studies evaluated for material availability, only 17 (8.4 percent; 95 percent CI, 5.0 to 13.1) had a material availability statement. CONCLUSIONS: There is an evident lack of reproducible research practices in plastic surgery literature. The majority of plastic surgery publications do not provide information and raw materials necessary to reproduce empirical studies. Increasing awareness at the individual and institutional levels can improve research quality and transparency.

Using the CONSORT statement to evaluate the completeness of reporting of addiction randomised trials: a cross-sectional review.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the completeness of reporting of addiction randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: RCTs identified using a PubMed search of 15 addiction journals and a 5-year cross-section. OUTCOME MEASURES: Completeness of reporting. RESULTS: Our analysis of 394 addiction RCTs found that the mean number of CONSORT items reported was 19.2 (SD 5.2), out of a possible 31. Twelve items were reported in <50% of RCTs; similarly, 12 items were reported in >75% of RCTs. Journal endorsement of CONSORT was found to improve the number of CONSORT items reported. CONCLUSIONS: Poor reporting quality may prohibit readers from critically appraising the methodological quality of addiction trials. We recommend journal endorsement of CONSORT since our study and those previous have shown that CONSORT endorsement improves the quality of reporting.