Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Aug 20:14:2383-2395.
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S262085. eCollection 2020.

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 Sridhar  3
Affiliations
Review

Analysis of Funding Source and Spin in the Reporting of Studies of Intravitreal Corticosteroid Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review

Harrish Nithianandan et al. Clin Ophthalmol. .

Abstract

Purpose: 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

JS is a consultant for Alcon Laboratories, Alimera Science, Oxurion, Regeneron, and Thrombogenics. AEK is a consultant for Allergan, Alimera Sciences, Regeneron, and Valeant and receives grant funding from Bausch Health, Roche/Genentech and Second Sight. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Selection of randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2:MR000033. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moses H, Matheson DHM, Cairns-Smith S, et al. The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA. 2015;313:174–189. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.15939 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:1603–1612. doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5293-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289:454–465. doi:10.1001/jama.289.4.454 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326:1167–1170. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources