Authorial Conflicts of Interest and Sponsorship in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Psoriasis

Abstract

Because industry influence\xa0– in the form of study sponsorship and authorial conflicts of interest (COI)\xa0– can bias the results and conclusions of systematic reviews, there is a need to understand their role in systematic reviews, particularly for common conditions like psoriasis. This study identifies conflicts of interest and industry-author relationships in systematic reviews on psoriasis treatment. Consistent with our cross-sectional design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on psoriasis treatment. We then performed a subgroup analysis to determine further industry ties within the systemic reviews funded by industry. Our study consisted of 27 systematic reviews and meta-analyses by 146 researchers. We found that 22 (81.5%) of the included systematic reviews contained at least 1 conflicted author. Six authors (of 47; 4.1%) disclosed all COI within the systematic review, 23 (of 47; 15.7%) partially disclosed COI but were also found to have undisclosed COI, and 18 (of 47; 12.3%) did not disclose any COI. Thirteen (of 22; 59.1%) contained narratives that favored the treatment group and 19 (of 22; 86.4%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Importantly, 3 systematic reviews were industry-sponsored. In terms of our subgroup analysis, we found several additional industry ties within the primary studies. Our study calls attention to conflicts of interest, industry sponsorship, and their influence on research outcomes in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Further, we provide examples of how specific industry ties can influence systematic reviews and recommendations for reporting.