Conflict of interest and funding in health communication on social media: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To synthesise the available evidence on the reporting of conflicts of interest (COI) by individuals posting health messages on social media, and on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (OVID) (2005-March 2022), Embase (2005-March 2022) and Google Scholar (2005-August 2022), supplemented with a review of reference lists and forward citation tracking. DESIGN: Reviewers selected eligible studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We appraised the quality of the included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We summarised the results in both narrative and tabular formats. We followed the PRISMA 2020 checklist for reporting our study. RESULTS: Of a total of 16 645 retrieved citations, we included 17 eligible studies. The frequency of reporting of conflicts of interest varied between 0% and 60%, but it was mostly low. In addition, a significant proportion, ranging between 15% and 80%, of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry. However, three studies assessed the proportion of conflicts of interest of physicians identified through Open Payment Database but not reported by the authors. It was found that 98.7-100% of these relationships with industry are not reported when communicating health-related information. Also, two studies showed that there is evidence of a potential association between COI and the content of posting. No data was found on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media. CONCLUSIONS: While a significant proportion of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry, lack of reporting on COI and undisclosed COI are common. We did not find studies on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION: dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.5jyl8jj4rg2w/v1.

Effects of size at birth on health, growth and developmental outcomes in children up to age 18: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Size at birth, an indicator of intrauterine growth, has been studied extensively in relation to subsequent health, growth and developmental outcomes. Our umbrella review synthesises evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the effects of size at birth on subsequent health, growth and development in children and adolescents up to age 18, and identifies gaps. METHODS: We searched five databases from inception to mid-July 2021 to identify eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses. For each meta-analysis, we extracted data on the exposures and outcomes measured and the strength of the association. FINDINGS: We screened 16 641 articles and identified 302 systematic reviews. The literature operationalised size at birth (birth weight and/or gestation) in 12 ways. There were 1041 meta-analyses of associations between size at birth and 67 outcomes. Thirteen outcomes had no meta-analysis.Small size at birth was examined for 50 outcomes and was associated with over half of these (32 of 50); continuous/post-term/large size at birth was examined for 35 outcomes and was consistently associated with 11 of the 35 outcomes. Seventy-three meta-analyses (in 11 reviews) compared risks by size for gestational age (GA), stratified by preterm and term. Prematurity mechanisms were the key aetiologies linked to mortality and cognitive development, while intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), manifesting as small for GA, was primarily linked to underweight and stunting. INTERPRETATION: Future reviews should use methodologically sound comparators to further understand aetiological mechanisms linking IUGR and prematurity to subsequent outcomes. Future research should focus on understudied exposures (large size at birth and size at birth stratified by gestation), gaps in outcomes (specifically those without reviews or meta-analysis and stratified by age group of children) and neglected populations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021268843.

Health Research Collaborations by Academic Entities: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To review the literature on health research collaborations by academic entities and to identify the main phases, components, and concepts of these research collaborations. METHOD: The authors conducted a systematic review of the literature, searching 4 databases in March 2022 for studies on health research collaboration between an academic entity (individual, group, or institution) and any other entity included. They excluded non-health-related studies and studies in which collaboration was not for the purpose of research. From included studies, reviewers abstracted data about the 4 main phases of research collaborations (initiation, conduct, monitoring, and evaluation) and synthesized their corresponding components and concepts using thematic analysis method. RESULTS: A total of 59 studies met inclusion criteria. These studies described building research collaborations between an academic entity and other academic entities (n = 29; 49%), communities (n = 28; 47%), industry (n = 7; 12%), and/or governmental entities (n = 4; 7%). Of the 59 studies, 22 addressed 2 phases of collaboration, 20 addressed 3 phases, and 17 addressed all 4 phases. All included studies described at least 1 of the components relevant to the initiation phase and at least 1 relevant to the conduct phase. Team structure was the most common component discussed in relation to the initiation phase (n = 48; 81%), and team dynamics was the most common component discussed in relation to the conduct phase (n = 55; 93%). At least 1 of the components relevant to the monitoring phase was reported in 36 studies, and at least 1 component relevant to the evaluation phase was reported in 28 studies. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides important information for groups aiming to engage in collaborative research. The synthesized list of collaboration phases and their components can serve as a road map for collaborators at different steps of their research.