Similar(60)
All of the reviews that reported information on trial author-industry financial ties or trial author-industry employment reported information on trial funding sources.
*See supplementary appendix 5 for coding notes on reporting of included trial funding sources, trial author-industry financial ties, and trial author-industry employment.
Only 16 of the 151 Cochrane reviews (11%, 7% to 17%) provided any information on trial author-industry financial ties or trial author-industry employment.
38 We investigated the extent to which systematic reviews of drug treatments published in 2010 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews reported funding sources, author-industry financial ties, and author-industry employment from included trials.
For each Cochrane review we also recorded whether the review reported information on the following types of conflicts of interest from included trials: trial funding sources, trial author-industry financial ties, and trial author-industry employment.
Of the 10 reviews that reported trial author-industry employment for some included trials, five also partially reported other trial author-industry financial ties (table 1; see also supplementary appendix 4).
They also determined whether or not conflicts of interest from included trials (trial funding sources, trial author-industry financial ties, or trial author-industry employment) were reported in the reviews.
If a review did not contain a disclosure statement, we coded review author-industry financial ties as not reported.
All studies that extracted trial author-industry financial ties or employment data reported it in the review.
Information on trial funding and trial author-industry ties was reported in one to seven locations within each review, with no consistent reporting location observed.
Sixteen (11%, 95% confidence interval 7%to17%7%) of the 151 Cochrane reviews reported trial author-industry financial ties or employment by industry.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com