Analysis of Funding Source and Spin in the Reporting of Studies of Intravitreal Corticosteroid Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review
Harrish Nithianandan,1 Ajay E Kuriyan,2 Michael J Venincasa,3 Jayanth Sridhar3 1Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 2Retina Service, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 3Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, M...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/222e39e4f468403588d1cb5193c44253 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Harrish Nithianandan,1 Ajay E Kuriyan,2 Michael J Venincasa,3 Jayanth Sridhar3 1Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 2Retina Service, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 3Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USACorrespondence: Jayanth Sridhar Email jsridhar1@med.miami.eduPurpose: This systematic review examined the relationship between industry funding and the presence of spin in high-impact studies evaluating intravitreal corticosteroid therapy for diabetic macular edema.Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched from inception through July 16, 2018, for randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses investigating the treatment of patients with diabetic macular edema using intravitreal corticosteroid therapy. Only studies published in English journals with an impact factor greater than 2 as per the Clarivate Analytics 2017 Journal Citation Report were included. The authors independently assessed study quality, funding source and the presence of reporting bias using a standardized datasheet.Results: Title and abstract screening were completed on 7158 unique hits and full-text review yielded 44 included studies. Overall, there was correspondence between the wording of abstract conclusions and study results in 41/44 (93%) articles. Correspondence between abstract conclusions and significance of main outcome was present in 14/14 (100%) industry-funded and 27/30 (90%) nonindustry-funded studies. The odds ratio of industry funding being associated with noncorrespondence was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.01– 5.61, p=0.54). The most common reason for noncorrespondence was the failure to mention rates of steroid-related intraocular pressure elevation.Conclusion: The results of this systematic review indicate that biased abstract outcome reporting is rare in published randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses of intravitreal corticosteroid therapy for diabetic macular edema. Biased reporting was not associated with the presence of industry funding or a conflict of interest.Keywords: corticosteroids, diabetic retinopathy, intravitreal therapy, macular edema, systematic review |
|---|