- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity
- Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019
| Ref ID | 901 |
| First Author | D. Pieper |
| Journal | SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-022-02051-x |
| Keywords |
Vaccination Sponsorship bias Non-Cochrane reviews Low methodological quality |
| Problem(s) |
Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity Single reviewer / lack of double checking Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality Financial conflicts of interest of review authors |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 57 |
| Summary of Findings | From 57 included systematic reviews of immunogenicity of vaccines indexed across MEDLINE and EMBASE (Ovid) between 2016 and 2019. The study included 27 industry funded systematic reviews, matched with 30 non-industry funded systematic reviews. The methodological quality (mean AMSTAR 2 summary score) across all 57 systematic reviews was 0.49. Overall, the median AMSTAR 2 summary score was higher for the non-industry funded systematic reviews than for the industry-funded systematic reviews (0.62 vs. 0.36; p < .00001). Lower ratings for industry funded systematic reviews were consistent across all but one AMSTAR 2 item, though significantly lower only for three specific items (data extraction, assessment of heterogeneity, and conflict of interest). |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |