Skip to main content
main-content

23.08.2018 | Systematic Review | Ausgabe 10/2018

Intensive Care Medicine 10/2018

Time trends in the reporting of conflicts of interest, funding and affiliation with industry in intensive care research: a systematic review

Zeitschrift:
Intensive Care Medicine > Ausgabe 10/2018
Autoren:
Michael Darmon, Julie Helms, Audrey De Jong, Peter Buhl Hjortrup, Emmanuel Weiss, Anders Granholm, Riccardo Pinciroli, Charlotte Poussardin, Marie Warrer Petersen, Stéphanie Sigaut, Bruna Brandao Barreto, Morten Hylander Moller, Elie Azoulay
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00134-018-5350-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract

Purpose

Conflict of interest (COI) may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, a researcher’s judgment or integrity in conducting or reporting research. We sought to assess time trends of COI and funding statement reporting in the critical care literature.

Methods

PubMed was searched by using Medical Subject Headings and the appropriate corresponding keywords: “INTENSIVE CARE UNIT” or “ICU” as a major topic. Four years in a 15-year time period (2001–2016) were arbitrarily chosen and one study month was randomly selected for each study period. Studies published during the selected months were included in the analysis.

Results

Three hundred and seventy-four studies were evaluated, including five reviews (1.3%) and ten randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (2.7%). COI statements were available in 65% of the studies and 8% had declared COI. COI statement rate, declared COI and funding statements increased over time, while the number of authors affiliated with industry and the discordance between the lack of COI statement and affiliation with industry decreased. Declared COI were more frequent in 2011–2016 as compared to 2001–2010 (OR 4.06; 95% CI 1.15–25.79) and in the higher quartile of a journal’s impact factor (OR of 16.73; 95% CI 3.28–306.20). Surprisingly, focus of the study, country of the first author and/or endorsement of the study by a trial group were not associated with COI statements.

Conclusion

Our study suggests COI reporting to have been unintuitive to most investigators and unreliable before ICMJE statements, and that strong incentives are needed to implement adequate reporting of COI.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Zusatzmaterial
Nur für berechtigte Nutzer zugänglich
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2018

Intensive Care Medicine 10/2018 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Sie können e.Med Innere Medizin 14 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.

  2. Sie können e.Med AINS 14 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet AINS

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update AINS und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise