TY - JOUR
T1 - Association between financial links to indoor tanning industry and conclusions of published studies on indoor tanning
T2 - Systematic review
AU - Adekunle, Lola
AU - Chen, Rebecca
AU - Morrison, Lily
AU - Halley, Meghan
AU - Eng, Victor
AU - Hendlin, Yogi
AU - Wehner, MacKenzie R.
AU - Chren, Mary Margaret
AU - Linos, Eleni
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding: EL is supported by the NIH (grants DP2CA225433 and K24AR075060). MH is supported by an NCI/NIH Re-entry Supplement (grant DP2CA225433-02). MRW was supported by NIAMS/NIH Dermatology Research Training grant T32 AR7465 (PI, Sarah E Millar). MC is supported by the NIH (grant R01AR073001). There was no specific funding for the study.
Funding Information:
“WB Grant receives funding from the UV Foundation (McLean, VA, Australia) and the Vitamin D Society (Canada) and awaits funding from the European Sunlight Association.” (Grant, et al. 2007)
Funding Information:
Co-author on studies funded by SUNARC (Grant, et al. 2007; Grant, et al. 2010), supported by the Norwegian Tanning Association (Porojnicu, et al. 2008) and the Ultraviolet Foundation and European Sunlight Association (Moan, et al. 2009) “The sun bed used in the present study was borrowed from The Norwegian Tanning Association.” (Porojnicu, et al. 2008). Co-author on Grant, et al. 2007 (“WB Grant receives funding from the UV Foundation (McLean, VA, Australia) and the Vitamin D Society (Canada) and awaits funding from the European Sunlight Association.”)
Publisher Copyright:
© Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to.
PY - 2020/2/4
Y1 - 2020/2/4
N2 - Objective To assess whether an association exists between financial links to the indoor tanning industry and conclusions of indoor tanning literature. Design Systematic review. Data sources PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, up to 15 February 2019. Study selection criteria Articles discussing indoor tanning and health were eligible for inclusion, with no article type restrictions (original research, systematic reviews, review articles, case reports, editorials, commentaries, and letters were all eligible). Basic science studies, articles describing only indoor tanning prevalence, non-English articles, and articles without full text available were excluded. Results 691 articles were included in analysis, including empiric articles (eg, original articles or systematic reviews) (357/691; 51.7%) and non-empiric articles letters (eg, commentaries, letters, or editorials) (334/691; 48.3%). Overall, 7.2% (50/691) of articles had financial links to the indoor tanning industry; 10.7% (74/691) articles favored indoor tanning, 3.9% (27/691) were neutral, and 85.4% (590/691) were critical of indoor tanning. Among the articles without industry funding, 4.4% (27/620) favored indoor tanning, 3.5% (22/620) were neutral, and 92.1% (571/620) were critical of indoor tanning. Among the articles with financial links to the indoor tanning industry, 78% (39/50) favored indoor tanning, 10% (5/50) were neutral, and 12% (6/50) were critical of indoor tanning. Support from the indoor tanning industry was significantly associated with favoring indoor tanning (risk ratio 14.3, 95% confidence interval 10.0 to 20.4). Conclusions Although most articles in the indoor tanning literature are independent of industry funding, articles with financial links to the indoor tanning industry are more likely to favor indoor tanning. Public health practitioners and researchers need to be aware of and account for industry funding when interpreting the evidence related to indoor tanning. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019123617.
AB - Objective To assess whether an association exists between financial links to the indoor tanning industry and conclusions of indoor tanning literature. Design Systematic review. Data sources PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, up to 15 February 2019. Study selection criteria Articles discussing indoor tanning and health were eligible for inclusion, with no article type restrictions (original research, systematic reviews, review articles, case reports, editorials, commentaries, and letters were all eligible). Basic science studies, articles describing only indoor tanning prevalence, non-English articles, and articles without full text available were excluded. Results 691 articles were included in analysis, including empiric articles (eg, original articles or systematic reviews) (357/691; 51.7%) and non-empiric articles letters (eg, commentaries, letters, or editorials) (334/691; 48.3%). Overall, 7.2% (50/691) of articles had financial links to the indoor tanning industry; 10.7% (74/691) articles favored indoor tanning, 3.9% (27/691) were neutral, and 85.4% (590/691) were critical of indoor tanning. Among the articles without industry funding, 4.4% (27/620) favored indoor tanning, 3.5% (22/620) were neutral, and 92.1% (571/620) were critical of indoor tanning. Among the articles with financial links to the indoor tanning industry, 78% (39/50) favored indoor tanning, 10% (5/50) were neutral, and 12% (6/50) were critical of indoor tanning. Support from the indoor tanning industry was significantly associated with favoring indoor tanning (risk ratio 14.3, 95% confidence interval 10.0 to 20.4). Conclusions Although most articles in the indoor tanning literature are independent of industry funding, articles with financial links to the indoor tanning industry are more likely to favor indoor tanning. Public health practitioners and researchers need to be aware of and account for industry funding when interpreting the evidence related to indoor tanning. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019123617.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85079006661&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85079006661&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmj.m7
DO - 10.1136/bmj.m7
M3 - Article
C2 - 32019742
AN - SCOPUS:85079006661
SN - 0959-8146
VL - 368
JO - The BMJ
JF - The BMJ
M1 - 368m7
ER -