Financial conflicts of interest of review authors

This problem is addressed in PRISMA 2020 and MECIR. Conflicts of interest ( or 'competing interests' or 'vested interests') of review team members may be partially or fully disclosed. But in addition to acknowledging any potential conflicts of interets the review team should state how known conflicts were managed and whether those who declared themselves as conflicted have been able to make decisions which may have influenced the review.

Articles that support this problem:

Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews on health policy and systems research: a cross sectional survey

2018 : International journal of health policy and management

Financial Conflicts of Interest and Reporting Bias Regarding the Association between Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

2014 : Plos medicine

Poor reporting of search strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis: a systematic review

2009 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

When trial authors write Cochrane Reviews: competing interests need to be better managed

2014 : Cochrane database of systematic reviews

Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality

2019 : Cochrane database of systematic reviews

Financial conflicts of interest and conclusions about neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza: an analysis of systematic reviews

2014 : Annals of internal medicine

Conclusions in systematic reviews of mammography for breast cancer screening and associations with review design and author characteristics

2017 : Systematic reviews

The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias

2018 : Bmj evidence-based medicine

Lessons learnt on transparency, scientific process and publication ethics. The short story of a long journey to get into the public domain unpublished data, methodological flaws and bias of the Cochrane HPV vaccines review

2019 : Bmj evidence-based medicine

Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses?

2012 : Bmj

Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects

2006 : Bmc medical research methodology

How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors

2016 : Bmj open

Association between author conflicts of interest and industry-sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction

2021 : Andrology

Do Author Conflicts of Interest and Industry Sponsorship Influence Outcomes of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Regarding Glaucoma Interventions? A Cross-sectional Analysis

2021 : Journal of glaucoma

Association between industry sponsorship and author conflicts of interest with outcomes of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions for opioid use disorder

2022 : Journal of substance abuse treatment

Efficacy and safety of acupuncture for polycystic ovary syndrome: An overview of systematic reviews

2023 : The journal of integrative medicine

Striking Errors in the Methodology, Execution, and Conclusions of the Cochrane Library Review of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Low Back Pain by Traeger et al

2023 : Pain medicine

Characteristics and methodological standards across systematic reviews with Meta-analysis of efficacy and/or effectiveness of influenza vaccines: an overview of reviews

2022 : Infectious diseases

Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019

2022 : Systematic reviews