| Ref ID | 121 |
| First Author | M. Kliner |
| Journal | COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS |
| Year Of Publishing | 2014 |
| URL | https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.ED000089/full |
| Keywords |
• Cochrane • Author • Allegiance • General medical |
| Problem(s) |
• Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing • Financial conflicts of interest of review authors • Non-financial conflicts of interest of review authors |
| Article Type | Editorial |
| Article Subtype | Discussion piece |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To assess the degree to which Cochrane Review Groups ensure that competing interests are managed in line with the Cochrane guidelines for dual authorship (review author is also an included study author) using an audit of all new Cochrane Reviews published from September 2013 to March 2014. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | 14% (28/197) of Cochrane reviews had one or more authors who were also authors on trials of included studies. Of these 28 reviews, 68%(19/28) recorded the competing interest in the methods section or as one of the declarations of potential conflicts of interest. Eighty-two percent (23/28) comply with the Cochrane guidance at the time, in that eligibility and risk of bias were independently assessed by a second author not involved in the studies. However, in eight studies, the dual author was one of the two people extracting data. This means only 53%(15/28) of recent reviews will actually fully comply with the most recently issued Cochrane guidance. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 197 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 197 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |