Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019.
Pieper, Dawid; Hellbrecht, Irma; Zhao, Linlu; Baur, Clemens; Pick, Georgia; Schneider, Sarah; Harder, Thomas; Young, Kelsey; Tricco, Andrea C; Westhaver, Ella; Tunis, Matthew.
  • Pieper D; Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Evidence-Based Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany. Dawid.pieper@uni-wh.de.
  • Hellbrecht I; Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Rüdersdorf, Germany. Dawid.pieper@uni-wh.de.
  • Zhao L; Center for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany. Dawid.pieper@uni-wh.de.
  • Baur C; Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Evidence-Based Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
  • Pick G; Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  • Schneider S; Health Canada and Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
  • Harder T; Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Evidence-Based Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
  • Young K; Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  • Tricco AC; Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Evidence-Based Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
  • Westhaver E; Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  • Tunis M; Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Evidence-Based Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Syst Rev ; 11(1): 174, 2022 08 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2038919
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and inform evidence-based decision making in health care. Earlier studies found association with industry to be negatively associated with methodological quality of SRs. However, this has not been investigated in SRs on vaccines.

METHODS:

We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE in March 2020. The results were restricted to those published between 2016 and 2019 with no language restrictions. Study characteristics were extracted by one person and checked by an experienced reviewer. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool by multiple reviewers after a calibration exercise was performed. A summary score for each SR was calculated. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare both groups.

RESULTS:

Out of 185 SRs that met all inclusion criteria, 27 SRs were industry funded. Those were matched with 30 non-industry funded SRs resulting in a total sample size of 57. The mean AMSTAR 2 summary score across all SRs was 0.49. Overall, the median AMSTAR 2 summary score was higher for the non-industry funded SRs than for the industry-funded SRs (0.62 vs. 0.36; p < .00001). Lower ratings for industry funded SRs were consistent across all but one AMSTAR 2 item, though significantly lower only for three specific items.

CONCLUSION:

The methodological quality of SRs in vaccination is comparable to SRs in other fields, while it is still suboptimal. We are not able to provide a satisfactory explanation why industry funded SRs had a lower methodological quality than non-industry funded SRs over recent years. Industry funding is an important indicator of methodological quality for vaccine SRs and should be carefully considered when appraising SR quality.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Vaccines / Journal Impact Factor Type of study: Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Topics: Vaccines Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Syst Rev Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S13643-022-02051-x

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Vaccines / Journal Impact Factor Type of study: Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Topics: Vaccines Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Syst Rev Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S13643-022-02051-x