Conflict Of Interest Statement Research Articles

Hepatic Ablation Technology: Assessment of Conflicts of Interest in Recent Literature.

Collaboration between the health care industry and surgeons is critical in modern medicine. Conflict of interest (COI) has the risk of introducing bias into research studies. We investigated the accuracy of self-disclosed COI for studies that researched the use of microwave ablation for liver metastasis. A literature search identified studies that investigated the use of microwave ablation for liver cancer between 2016 and 2022. We utilized the Open Payments Database to query individual authors' financial contributions from the industry. The accuracy of the disclosure statement and financial contribution for each study and author was calculated. We compared the amount of financial contribution authors received based on the accuracy of their COI statement. Twenty-five studies of interest were identified. The mean number of authors was 8.24. A disclosure statement was present in 52% of studies. Of those, 28% had an incongruent disclosure statement. 9/25 (36%) of studies had a conflict of interest based on financial payments provided by industry. Overall, authors received an average of $440,483.41 (SD $1,889,375.34). We did not find a difference in the financial contribution's value based on the disclosure statement's accuracy (P = .55). Over a quarter of studies in our review of microwave ablation literature had discrepancies in the reporting of conflicts of interest, highlighting the need for improved reporting of potential conflicts of interest to protect the integrity of clinical research. Compared to other fields of surgery, we found a lower rate of undisclosed COI, suggesting that the scope of cancer-directed surgery may be more resistant to industry influence.

Co-design workshops to develop evidence synthesis summary formats for use by clinical guideline development groups

BackgroundEvidence synthesis is used by decision-makers in various ways, such as developing evidence-based recommendations for clinical guidelines. Clinical guideline development groups (GDGs) typically discuss evidence synthesis findings in a multidisciplinary group, including patients, healthcare providers, policymakers, etc. A recent mixed methods systematic review (MMSR) identified no gold standard format for optimally presenting evidence synthesis findings to these groups. However, it provided 94 recommendations to help produce more effective summary formats for general evidence syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews). To refine the MMSR recommendations to create more actionable guidance for summary producers, we aimed to explore these 94 recommendations with participants involved in evidence synthesis and guideline development.MethodsWe conducted a descriptive qualitative study using online focus group workshops in February and March 2023. These groups used a participatory co-design approach with interactive voting activities to identify preferences for a summary format's essential content and style. We created a topic guide focused on recommendations from the MMSR with mixed methods support, ≥ 3 supporting studies, and those prioritized by an expert advisory group via a pragmatic prioritization exercise using the MoSCoW method (Must, Should, Could, and Will not haves). Eligible participants must be/have been involved in GDGs and/or evidence synthesis. Groups were recorded and transcribed. Two independent researchers analyzed transcripts using directed content analysis with 94 pre-defined codes from the MMSR.ResultsThirty individuals participated in six focus groups. We coded 79 of the 94 pre-defined codes. Participants suggested a “less is more” structured approach that minimizes methodological steps and statistical data, promoting accessibility to all audiences by judicious use of links to further information in the full report. They emphasized concise, consistently presented formats that highlight key messages, flag readers to indicators of trust in the producers (i.e., logos, websites, and conflict of interest statements), and highlight the certainty of evidence (without extenuating details).ConclusionsThis study identified guidance based on the preferences of guideline developers and evidence synthesis producers about the format of evidence synthesis summaries to support decision-making. The next steps involve developing and user-testing prototype formats through one-on-one semi-structured interviews to optimize evidence synthesis summaries and support decision-making.

ChatGPT for Automated Cross-Checking of Authors' Conflicts of Interest Against Industry Payments.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services "OpenPayments" database tracks industry payments to US physicians to improve research conflicts of interest (COIs) transparency, but manual cross-checking of articles' authors against this database is labor-intensive. This study aims to assess the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT to automate COI data analysis in medical publications. An observational study analyzing the accuracy of ChatGPT in automating the cross-checking of COI disclosures in medical research articles against the OpenPayments database. Publications regarding Food and Drug Administration-approved biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab. First, ChatGPT evaluated author affiliations from PubMed to identify those based in the United States. Second, for author names matching 1 or multiple payment recipients in OpenPayments, ChatGPT undertook a comparative analysis between author affiliation and OpenPayments recipient metadata. Third, ChatGPT scrutinized full article COI statements, producing an intricate matrix of disclosures for each author against each relevant company (Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline). A random subset of responses was manually checked for accuracy. In total, 78 relevant articles and 294 unique US authors were included, leading to 980 LLM queries. Manual verification showed accuracies of 100% (200/200; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 98.1%-100%) for country analysis, 97.4% (113/116; 95% CI: 92.7%-99.1%) for matching author affiliations with OpenPayments metadata, and 99.2% (1091/1100; 95% CI: 98.5%-99.6%) for COI statement data extraction. LLMs have robust potential to automate author-company-specific COI cross-checking against the OpenPayments database. Our findings pave the way for streamlined, efficient, and accurate COI assessment that could be widely employed across medical research.

Disclosure of patenting activities within scientific publications as potential conflicts-of-interest: Evidences from biomedical literature

Most scientific publishers require authors to submit their manuscripts with a text reporting their parallel activities which might be considered as Conflicts-of-Interest (COI), including patent-related ones. The patenting activities that are disclosed by authors or institutions as COI in articles within Conflicts-of-Interest Statements (COIS) are generally analyzed in the literature either within small datasets or using non-systematic methodologies. This study proposes methods for assessing COIS presence and their main features across biomedical topics and journals, particularly with respect to the patent filing details that may be disclosed herein. These methods have been established and tested in the freely available PubMed database by searching the literature indexed herein during the period 2011–2022. However, when comparing the results of such searches within PubMed and a selection of journals’ websites for a specific topic (such as COVID-19), COIS appear unevenly available and searchable in PubMed owing to the varying practices that each journal implements. Thus, COIS appear a possibly underestimated source of patent information but the search and analysis of COI disclosures in biomedical literature requires well-designed and controlled strategies for identifying the relevant evidences for a given scope, such as prior art analysis and legal or strategic evaluation of patenting activities.

Assessment of Usefulness of Randomized Control Trials in Child Health Research Published in 2007 and 2017

ObjectiveTo examine how clinical usefulness in pediatric research with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has changed over a 10-year period via a research usefulness tool composed of unique clinical usefulness criteria. Study designWe leveraged a pre-existing sample of child health RCTs published in 2007, used by our team in a previous study. Using the same methods, a research librarian executed a literature search in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for the 2017 cohort. We included the first 300 eligible citations from the randomly ordered list for each year, creating two cohorts of 300 publications each, one in 2007 and one in 2017. Each publication was analyzed and data regarding primary and secondary outcomes, as well as 11 unique criteria of clinical usefulness, were extracted. Each publication was then graded using a tool created by our research team. After quality review, statistical analysis was then performed. Results600 pediatric RCT publications were included in this review. The mean score increased from 6.07 in 2007 to 9.20 in 2017 (P<0.001). Usefulness factors that saw the largest increase in reporting were context placement, funding statements, and conflict of interest statements, while patient centeredness, value for money, and raw data availability remained infrequently reported. ConclusionOur results demonstrate that clinical usefulness of pediatric research improved over this 10-year period, but there are still areas that need a great deal of improvement in order to maximize clinical usefulness and reduce research waste.

Conflict of Interest Statement

Conflict of Interest Statement

Reproducible research practices and transparency across linguistics

Scientific studies of language span across many disciplines and provide evidence for social,&amp;nbsp; cultural, cognitive, technological, and biomedical studies of human nature and behavior. As it becomes increasingly empirical and quantitative, linguistics has been facing challenges and limitations of the scientific practices that pose barriers to reproducibility and replicability. One of the&amp;nbsp; proposed solutions to the widely acknowledged reproducibility and replicability crisis has been the implementation of transparency practices,&amp;nbsp; e.g., open access publishing, preregistrations, sharing study materials, data, and analyses, performing study replications, and declaring conflicts of interest. Here, we have assessed the prevalence of these practices in 600 randomly sampled journal articles from linguistics across two time points. In line with similar studies in other disciplines, we found that 35% of the articles were published open access and the rates of sharing materials, data, and protocols were below 10%. None of the articles reported preregistrations, 1% reported replications, and 10% had conflict of interest statements. These rates have not increased noticeably between 2008/2009 and 2018/2019, pointing to remaining barriers and the slow adoption of open and reproducible research practices in linguistics. To facilitate adoption of these practices, we provide a range of recommendations and solutions for implementing transparency and improving reproducibility of research in linguistics.

Impact of Reporting Bias, Conflict of Interest, and Funding Sources on Quality of Orthopaedic Research

BackgroundInfluence of factors like reporting outcomes, conflicts of interest, and funding sources on study outcomes, particularly positive outcomes in orthopedics, remains underexplored. As transparency of partnerships in orthopaedic surgery through conflicts of interest statements has increased over the years, there has been a lack of focus on the value of these partnerships in influencing study outcomes. We aimed to investigate the associations between reporting outcomes, conflicts of interest, and sources of funding on study outcomes. MethodsWe reviewed articles published in 1 year in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, The American Journal of Sports Medicine, and The Journal of Arthroplasty. The abstracts were examined for appropriate inclusion, while the authors’ names, academic degrees, funding disclosures, and departmental and institutional affiliations were redacted. There were a total of 1,351 publications reviewed from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021. ResultsA significant association was found between positive outcomes and reported conflicts of interest (75% versus 25%, P < .001). Likewise, conflicts of interest showed significant association with industry-sponsored studies (88% versus 12%, P < .001) and evidence level > II (72% versus 28%, P < .001). Industry-sponsored research accounted for the highest percentage of studies involving a conflict of interest (88%) and level I studies (12%). ConclusionsConflicts of interest are significantly associated with positive outcomes in orthopaedics. Sponsored studies were more inclined to have conflicts of interest and accounted for the majority of level I studies.

Home sleep apnea tests: Conflicts of interest and funding

ObjectivePediatric otolaryngologists rely on HSAT literature to guide their diagnostic methods related to obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Our objectives were to review the rates of presence of funding and/or potential conflict of interest (COI), as well as its relationship to the overall quality of HSAT publications in the literature over the last two decades. Data sourcesMedline, Web of Science and Embase databases. Review methodsA review was performed reviewing publications from January 2000 to December 2021. Oxford Level of Evidence (OLE) was used as a quality metric. COI and funding were recorded verbatim as self-declared in the text of the manuscript. ResultsLiterature search yielded 4257 articles with 400 articles included in final analysis. The odds of higher quality studies (LOE 1 or 2) were higher in the last five years from 2016 to 2021 (OR, 3.6; 95% CI 1.4 to 6.9). Nearly half of all articles (43.0%) lacked a statement regarding funding or COI. There was a positive correlation between level of evidence and industry funding. The largest source of funding was from industry, comprising 39.6% of all studies that had a funding statement. Of these industry-funded studies, 37.5% reported no COI or lacked a COI statement. ConclusionDespite a growing interest in HSATs for OSA evaluation, there is heterogeneity in reporting of COI and high prevalence of industry funding and COI. Re-evaluation and consensus amongst journals on guidelines for reporting disclosures are needed. Level of evidence4

Open science practices need substantial improvement in prognostic model studies in oncology using machine learning

ObjectiveTo describe the frequency of open science practices in a contemporary sample of studies developing prognostic models using machine learning methods in the field of oncology. Study design and settingWe conducted a systematic review, searching the MEDLINE database between December 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, for studies developing a multivariable prognostic model using machine learning methods (as defined by the authors) in oncology. Two authors independently screened records and extracted open science practices. ResultsWe identified 46 publications describing the development of a multivariable prognostic model. The adoption of open science principles was poor. Only one study reported availability of a study protocol, and only one study was registered. Funding statements and conflicts of interest statements were common. Thirty-five studies (76%) provided data sharing statements, with 21 (46%) indicating data were available on request to the authors and seven declaring data sharing was not applicable. Two studies (4%) shared data. Only 12 studies (26%) provided code sharing statements, including 2 (4%) that indicated the code was available on request to the authors. Only 11 studies (24%) provided sufficient information to allow their model to be used in practice. The use of reporting guidelines was rare: eight studies (18%) mentioning using a reporting guideline, with 4 (10%) using the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis statement, 1 (2%) using Minimum Information About Clinical Artificial Intelligence Modeling and Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence, 1 (2%) using Strengthening The Reporting Of Observational Studies In Epidemiology, 1 (2%) using Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, and 1 (2%) using Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs. ConclusionThe adoption of open science principles in oncology studies developing prognostic models using machine learning methods is poor. Guidance and an increased awareness of benefits and best practices of open science are needed for prediction research in oncology.

Communicating evidence synthesis: co-designing summary formats with end users

Abstract Background Evidence syntheses are essential to the creation of evidence-based guidelines that guide health care. Findings from our recent mixed methods systematic review (MMSR) identified no gold standard format for communicating summaries of evidence syntheses to guideline development groups. This is important as these groups are comprised of patients, healthcare providers, policymakers, etc., who all have different expertise, perspectives and priorities. Our overall aim is to develop evidence-informed prototype summary formats for use in guideline development. To inform this process, we held online co-design focus group workshops shaped by findings from our MMSR. Methods We held six focus groups with 30 participants involved in developing guidelines and/or evidence synthesis (February - March 2023). The topic guide was informed by the MMSR -- focusing on recommendations with mixed methods support, ≥3 supporting studies, and those prioritised by an expert advisory group through a pragmatic prioritisation exercise using the MoSCoW method (Must, Should, Could, and Will not haves). Focus groups were recorded and transcripts were analysed using a directed content analysis. Results Participants suggested a “less-is-more” structured approach that minimises methodological steps and statistical data, promoting accessibility to all audiences by judicious use of links to the full technical report. They emphasized the importance of concise consistently-presented formats which emphasize key messages, flag readers to indicators of trust in the producers (i.e., logos, websites, and conflict of interest statements), and highlight the quality of evidence. Conclusions Project findings are informing the creation of accessible and actionable guidance on best-practices for creating summary formats. Next steps involve user-testing prototype formats through semi-structured interviews which will then be integrated into the National Clinical Guideline development process in Ireland. Key messages • Co-design workshops delineated key aspects of effective and acceptable evidence synthesis summary formats to help create reproducible format templates for use in clinical guideline development. • Creating summary formats accessible to all guideline development group members will promote better communication and translation of research evidence into recommendations and practice.

All that Glitters is Not Gold: Examining Cost Effectiveness Analyses in Radiation Oncology

Cost effectiveness analyses (CEA) provide data for health policy decisions in resource constrained environments. These are important in Radiation Oncology as infrastructure and delivery costs increase and indications expand. The purpose of this study was to systematically review methodologic quality and trends in CEAs involving radiotherapy (RT). A systematic review was performed on cost effectiveness/utility studies involving RT, querying PubMed and Embase from inception to September 2020. Non-English, reviews, abstracts and cost-only studies were excluded. Independent reviewers screened and abstracted study demographics, economic parameters and methodological details. After screening 1652 abstracts, 214 met criteria. The first publication was in 1995, and more than half (n = 113, 53%) were published after 2014. Author institutions were from North America (n = 128, 60%), Europe (n = 49, 23%) and Asia (n = 30, 14%) with most reporting in US$ (n = 143, 67%). A majority utilized a decision model (n = 164, 77%), healthcare payer perspective (n = 171, 80%) and a finite time horizon (n = 108, 50%). Publications spanned 96 unique journals, most commonly International Journal of Radiation and Oncological Biology and Physics (n = 35, 16%). Treatment intent was curative in 171 studies. Disease sites included breast (n = 34, 16%), genitourinary (n = 31, 14%), and gastrointestinal (n = 31, 14%). RT was mostly used as primary treatment (n = 144, 67%), followed by adjuvant (n = 70, 33%) and neoadjuvant (n = 10, 5%). Emerging topics included stereotactic RT (n = 45, 21%), immunotherapy (n = 6, 3%), oligometastasis (n = 4, 2%), and heavy particles (n = 23, 11%). RT was compared to other RT (n = 136, 64%), surgery (n = 43, 20%), drugs (n = 14, 7%) and observation (n = 31, 17%). Incomplete reporting was common. Missing elements included analysis perspective (n = 13, 6%), time horizon (n = 38, 18%), discounting of utilities (n = 71, 33%) or costs (n = 54, 25%), and willingness-to-pay threshold (n = 59, 28%). Furthermore, 27 studies did not perform sensitivity analyses, 36 did not evaluate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and only 60 explicitly utilized recognized reporting guidelines. Conflict of interest statements were found in 63%, with sponsor statements in 59%; 25% were industry sponsors. Outcome parameters were obtained from primary (author institution/trial data) sources in 33%, including randomized trials (RCTs) (n = 20, 9%), retrospective data (n = 20, 9%) and population data (n = 9, 4%). The remainder utilized secondary sources including RCTs (n = 71, 33%), retrospective data (n = 35, 16%) or meta-analyses (n = 11, 5%). Outcomes included quality adjusted life years (n = 158, 74%), life-years (n = 30, 14%) or toxicity (n = 26,12%). 31% utilized author generated utilities; of literature derived only 49% were matched to disease and clinical context. While CEAs are increasingly common in RT, reporting and methodologic rigor must improve. Greater use of published guidelines will improve data quality for decision makers.

Commentary on "The Impact of Vertical Integration on Physician Behavior and Healthcare Delivery: Evidence from Gastroenterology Practices".

This paper was accepted by Stefan Scholtes, healthcare management. Conflict of Interest Statement: E. D. Shah has consulted or served on advisory boards for Ardelyx, GI Supply, Mahana, Mylan, Neuraxis, Salix, Sanofi, and Takeda. Funding: E. D. Shah is funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [Grant NIH 1K23DK134752].

Overviews of reviews in the cardiovascular field underreported critical methodological and transparency characteristics: a methodological study based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) statement

ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the epidemiology, reporting characteristics, and adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) statement of overviews of reviews (overviews) of interventions in the cardiovascular field. Study Design and SettingMEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 1, 2000, to October 15, 2020. An updated search was performed in MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and Google Scholar up to August 25, 2022. Overviews of interventions published in English and primarily considering populations, interventions, and outcomes pertinent to the cardiovascular field were eligible. Study selection, data extraction, and PRIOR adherence assessment were performed by two authors independently. ResultsWe analyzed 96 overviews. Almost half (43/96 [45%]) were published between 2020 and 2022 and contained a median of 15 systematic reviews (SRs) (interquartile range, 9–28). The commonest title terminology was “overview of (systematic) reviews” (38/96 [40%]). Methods for handling SR overlap were reported in 24/96 (25%), methods for assessing primary study overlap in 18/96 (19%), handling of discrepant data in 11/96 (11%), and methods for methodological quality or risk of bias assessment of the primary studies within SRs in 23/96 (24%). Authors included data sharing statements in 28/96 (29%), complete funding disclosure in 43/96 (45%), protocol registration in 43/96 (45%), and conflict of interest statement in 82/96 (85%) overviews. ConclusionInsufficient reporting was identified in methodological characteristics unique in overviews' conduct and most transparency markers. Adoption of PRIOR from the research community could ameliorate overviews’ reporting.

Evaluating The Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Surgical Management of Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women: An Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) significantly reduces women's quality of life (QoL). Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is increasing in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), thus standardization is important to ensure reporting completeness. We aim to evaluate completeness of reporting of RCTs for surgical management of SUI in women based on an adaptation of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement with PRO extension (CONSORT-PRO). A literature search was conducted and all RCTs meeting inclusion criteria were evaluated using the CONSORT-PRO adapted checklist and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment tool (RoB). We calculated a completion percentage score for each trial's adherence to the CONSORT-PRO adapted checklist and used bivariate regression analysis to examine associations between trial characteristics and completion percentage scores. Forty-three RCTs underwent data extraction and analysis. Mean completion percentage of the CONSORT-PRO was 50.53% (SD=15.63). A total of 38 (of 43; 88.37%) RCTs received an RoB 2.0 rating of "some concern." RCTs with follow-up longer than 3months had statistically significantly higher CONSORT-PRO completion: 3-6months (p=.049), 6-12months (p=.009), more than 12months (p=.021). Compared with studies without a conflict of interest statement, studies reporting a conflict of interest (p<.001) or reporting no conflict of interest (p=.048) had higher reporting completeness. Our results suggest many RCTs addressing surgical management of SUI in women have poor adherence to CONSORT-PRO reporting guidelines. Improving reporting completeness through adherence to the CONSORT-PRO checklist can better inform clinical decision making and improve QoL.

Transparency and reproducibility in the journal of contextual behavioral science: An audit study

Increasing openness, transparency, and reproducibility in contextual behavioral science (CBS) through incorporating CBS-consistent open science practices was identified as a key aim of the ACBS Research Task Force. However, little data exist on the prevalence of open science practices currently being used in CBS research. This study aimed to address this gap by auditing the prevalence of open science and reproducibility practices in studies published in the Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science across 1 year, prior to the journal's adoption of open science recommendations (July 2020–July 2021). Aims of the study were twofold: first, to characterize current use of open science and reproducibility practices in JCBS to serve as a point for future comparison; second, to compare the rate of open science and reproducibility practices in JCBS, the flagship journal for contextual behavioral science, against two recently published audits of top clinical psychology journals. Domains audited were use of pre-registration, practices to ensure adequate power, data availability statements, use of standard reporting guidelines, preprints, conflict of interest statements, and resource and code sharing. Results indicated that studies published in JCBS had low rates of pre-registration, data availability statements, preprint posting, and resource and code sharing. Use of mandated standardized reporting guidelines and conflict of interest disclosures, both required by JCBS at the time of the audit, reflected relative strengths. Power for correlational studies was superior to power for experimental studies; the latter reflected a relative weakness compared to other clinical psychology journals. Rates of practices required by JCBS were significantly higher than those not required. JCBS may consider strongly encouraging or mandating other open science practices to incentivize researchers to use them.

Correction

Cancer ScienceEarly View CORRECTIONOpen Access Correction This article corrects the following: Long noncoding RNA plasmacytoma variant translocation 1 promotes progression of colorectal cancer by sponging microRNA-152-3p and regulating E2F3/MAPK8 signaling Xin Liu, Lei Li, Jing Bai, Liang Li, Jianghe Fan, Zexian Fu, Jianxia Liu, Volume 113Issue 1Cancer Science pages: 109-119 First Published online: November 24, 2021 First published: 16 March 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/cas.15689AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat In an article1 titled “Long noncoding RNA plasmacytoma variant translocation 1 promotes progression of colorectal cancer by sponging microRNA-152-3p and regulating E2F3/MAPK8 signaling” by Xin Liu, Lei Li, Jing Bai, Liang Li, Jianghe Fan, Zexian Fu, Jianxia Liu, the Conflict of Interest statement is missing. The correct statement is shown below: “There are no conflict of interests in this research.” The authors apologize for the error. REFERENCE 1Liu X, Li L, Bai J, et al. Long noncoding RNA plasmacytoma variant translocation 1 promotes progression of colorectal cancer by sponging microRNA-152-3p and regulating E2F3/MAPK8 signaling. Cancer Sci. 2022; 113: 109- 119. doi:10.1111/cas.15113 Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue ReferencesRelatedInformation

A Systematic Appraisal of Conflicts of Interest and Researcher Allegiance in Clinical Studies of Dry Needling for Musculoskeletal Pain Disorders.

The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and methods of conflicts of interest (COI) reporting in published dry needling (DN) studies and to determine the frequency of researcher allegiance (RA). A pragmatic systematic search was undertaken to identify DN studies that were included in systematic reviews. Information regarding COI and RA were extracted from the full text of the published DN reports, and study authors were sent a survey inquiring about the presence of RA. A secondary analysis also was undertaken based on study quality/risk of bias scores that were extracted from the corresponding systematic reviews and study funding extracted from each DN study. Sixteen systematic reviews were identified, containing 60 studies of DN for musculoskeletal pain disorders, 58 of which were randomized controlled trials. Of the DN studies, 53% had a COI statement. None of these studies disclosed a COI. Nineteen (32%) authors of DN studies responded to the survey. According to the RA survey, 100% of DN studies included at least 1 RA criterion. According to the data extraction, 1 RA criterion was met in 45% of the DN studies. The magnitude of RA per study was 7 times higher according to the surveys than in the published reports. These results suggest that COI and RA might be underreported in studies of DN. In addition, authors of DN studies might be unaware of the potential influence of RA on study results and conclusions. Improved reporting of COI/RA might improve credibility of results and help identify the various factors involved in complex interventions provided by physical therapists. Doing so could help optimize treatments for musculoskeletal pain disorders provided by physical therapists.

Correction Statement: Conflict of Interest Statements

Correction Statement: Conflict of Interest Statements

Systematic review on combination pharmacotherapy: methodological rigor but no pharmacology.

Systematic review on combination pharmacotherapy: methodological rigor but no pharmacology.