TY - JOUR
T1 - Poor reporting of search strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis
T2 - A systematic review
AU - Roundtree, Aimee Kendall
AU - Kallen, Michael A.
AU - Lopez-Olivo, Maria A.
AU - Kimmel, Barbara
AU - Skidmore, Becky
AU - Ortiz, Zulma
AU - Cox, Vanessa
AU - Suarez-Almazor, Maria E.
N1 - Funding Information:
A major portion of this work was funded by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). In addition, MSA has a K24 career award from the National Institutes of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Disease Disorders [5 K24 AR053593]. She is also the director of the Houston Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics (CERTs), which receives core support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) [5 U18 HS016093].
PY - 2009/2
Y1 - 2009/2
N2 - Objective: To evaluate the quality of reviews about etanercept (ETN) and infliximab (IFX), two biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Study Design: A comprehensive, systematic review, including searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other electronic databases and hand-searches for published and unpublished literature. Two raters independently examined each article and identified systematic reviews as those including either a description of: (1) sources for identification and data retrieval; or (2) search strategy. They applied the quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUOROM) instrument to systematic reviews. Results: Of 3,620 total citations, 281 were identified as reviews. Of these, 26 (9%) qualified as systematic rather than narrative. Overall, few reviews described selection of sources, critical appraisal, or quantitative summary or synthesis. Systematic reviews most often failed to explain validity assessment. Several articles did not disclose authors' participation in industry-funded clinical trials. Most reviews published in high impact factor and rheumatology journals did not meet many quality standards. Significant associations existed between review type (narrative vs. systematic) and reported funding (P = 0.05), conflicts of interest (P = 0.005), and country of publication (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: More than 90% of the published reviews were narrative and did not report methods and conflicts of interest in sufficient detail, raising concerns about selection and reporting bias.
AB - Objective: To evaluate the quality of reviews about etanercept (ETN) and infliximab (IFX), two biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Study Design: A comprehensive, systematic review, including searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other electronic databases and hand-searches for published and unpublished literature. Two raters independently examined each article and identified systematic reviews as those including either a description of: (1) sources for identification and data retrieval; or (2) search strategy. They applied the quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUOROM) instrument to systematic reviews. Results: Of 3,620 total citations, 281 were identified as reviews. Of these, 26 (9%) qualified as systematic rather than narrative. Overall, few reviews described selection of sources, critical appraisal, or quantitative summary or synthesis. Systematic reviews most often failed to explain validity assessment. Several articles did not disclose authors' participation in industry-funded clinical trials. Most reviews published in high impact factor and rheumatology journals did not meet many quality standards. Significant associations existed between review type (narrative vs. systematic) and reported funding (P = 0.05), conflicts of interest (P = 0.005), and country of publication (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: More than 90% of the published reviews were narrative and did not report methods and conflicts of interest in sufficient detail, raising concerns about selection and reporting bias.
KW - Conflict of interest
KW - Etanercept
KW - Infliximab
KW - QUOROM instrument
KW - Rheumatoid arthritis
KW - Systematic review quality
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=58149089960&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=58149089960&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.003
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.003
M3 - Review article
C2 - 19013763
AN - SCOPUS:58149089960
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 62
SP - 128
EP - 137
JO - Journal of clinical epidemiology
JF - Journal of clinical epidemiology
IS - 2
ER -