Conflict of interest and risk of bias in systematic reviews on methylphenidate for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a cross-sectional study

Ref ID 1061
First Author A. Snellman
Journal SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
Year Of Publishing 2023
URL https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-023-02342-x
Keywords • Neurology
• Risk of bias
• Transparency
Problem(s) • Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing
• High risk of bias (ROBIS)
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Sweden
Checklists • ROBIS
Aim To compare conflict of interest disclosed by authors of systematic reviews (SRs) of a well-defined clinical topic versus information on financial conflict of interest found in open Internet sources, in relation to risk of bias of systematic reviews indexed across Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PsycINFO in December 2020, investigating the effect of methylphenidate on ADHD .
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings Out of the 44 SRs included, 15 (34%) declared conflict of interest, 27 (61%) did not, and a declaration of conflict of interest was missing for 2 (5%). On open websites, conflict of interest was found for at least one author of 23 (52%) SRs: disclosed in 15 (34%) and not disclosed in 8 (18%) SRs. Seven (16%) SRs had low, 36 (82%) had high, and 1 (2%) had unclear RoB. Among SRs with financial conflict of interest found in open sources, 6/22 (27%) had low RoB compared to 1/21 (5%) if no such conflict of interest was identified. Among SRs with financial conflict of interest identified, 1/6 (17%) at low RoB did not disclose their conflict of interest, whereas the corresponding proportion among SRs at high RoB was 7/16 (44%).
Number of systematic reviews included 44
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 665
Treatment impacted Not Applicable
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description