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