| Ref ID | 8 |
| First Author | M. Bes-Rastrollo |
| Journal | PLOS MEDICINE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2014 |
| URL | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001578 |
| Keywords |
• Public health • Sponsorship bias • Allegiance • Author |
| Problem(s) |
• Financial conflicts of interest of review authors • Spin or subjective interpretation of findings |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Meta-epidemiological analysis |
| First Author Country | Spain |
| Aim | To assess whether financial industry funding or the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest influenced the results of published systematic reviews indexed across several databases up to 31 August 2013 conducted in the field of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain or obesity. Systematic review conclusions were independently classified by two researchers into two groups: those that found a positive association and those that did not. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | 17 systematic reviews (with 18 conclusions) of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain or obesity were included. In six of the systematic reviews a financial conflict of interest with some food industry was disclosed. Among those reviews without any reported conflict of interest, 83.3% of the conclusions (10/12) were that sugar-sweetened beverage consumption could be a potential risk factor for weight gain. In contrast, the same percentage of conclusions, 83.3% (5/6), of those systematic reviews disclosing some financial conflict of interest with the food industry were that the scientific evidence was insufficient to support a positive association between sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain or obesity. Those reviews with conflicts of interest were five times more likely to present a conclusion of no positive association than those without them (relative risk: 5.0, 95% CI: 1.3–19.3). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 17 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 405 |
| Treatment impacted | Yes |
| Treatment impacted description | Systematic review conclusions were independently classified by two researchers into two groups: those that found a positive association and those that did not. This was correlated with disclosures of vested interests for the review teams. |
| Interpretation impacted | Yes |
| Interpretation impacted description | Reviews with conflicts of interest were five times more likely to present a conclusion of no positive association than those without them (relative risk: 5.0, 95% CI: 1.3–19.3). |