Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, and impact in studies of influenza vaccines: systematic review

Cochrane Vaccines Field, ASL (Azienda Sanitaria Locale) AL 20, 15100 Alessandria, Italy.
BMJ (online) (Impact Factor: 16.38). 02/2009; 338:b354. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b354
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To explore the relation between study concordance, take home message, funding, and dissemination of comparative studies assessing the effects of influenza vaccines.
Systematic review without meta-analysis.
Search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and the web, without language restriction, for any studies comparing the effects of influenza vaccines against placebo or no intervention. Abstraction and assessment of quality of methods were carried out.
We identified 259 primary studies (274 datasets). Higher quality studies were significantly more likely to show concordance between data presented and conclusions (odds ratio 16.35, 95% confidence interval 4.24 to 63.04) and less likely to favour effectiveness of vaccines (0.04, 0.02 to 0.09). Government funded studies were less likely to have conclusions favouring the vaccines (0.45, 0.26 to 0.90). A higher mean journal impact factor was associated with complete or partial industry funding compared with government or private funding and no funding (differences between means 5.04). Study size was not associated with concordance, content of take home message, funding, and study quality. Higher citation index factor was associated with partial or complete industry funding. This was sensitive to the exclusion from the analysis of studies with undeclared funding.
Publication in prestigious journals is associated with partial or total industry funding, and this association is not explained by study quality or size.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Spin in the reporting of randomized controlled trials, where authors report research in a way that potentially misrepresents results and mislead readers, has been demonstrated in the broader medical literature. We investigated spin in wound care trials with (a) no statistically significant result for the primary outcome and (b) no clearly specified primary outcome. We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register of Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible studies were: Parallel-group RCTs of interventions for foot, leg or pressure ulcers published in 2004 to 2009 (inclusive) with either a clearly identified primary outcome for which there was a statistically non-significant result (Cohort A) or studies that had no clear primary outcome (Cohort B).We extracted general study details. For both Cohorts A and B we then assessed for the presence of spin. For Cohort A we used a pre-defined process to assess reports for spin. For Cohort B we aimed to assess spin by recording the number of positive treatment effect claims made. We also compared the number of statistically significant and non-significant results reported in the main text and the abstract looking specifically for spin in the form of selective outcome reporting. Of the 71 eligible studies, 28 were eligible for Cohort A; of these, 71% (20/28) contained spin. Cohort B contained 43 studies; of these, 86% (37/43) had abstracts that claimed a favorable treatment claim. Whilst 74% (32/43) of main text results in Cohort B included at least one statistically non-significant result, this was not reflected in the abstract where only 28% contained (12/43) at least one statistically non-significant result. Spin is a frequent phenomenon in reports of RCTs of wound treatments. Studies without statistically significant results for the primary outcome used spin in 71% of cases. Furthermore, 33% (43/132) of reports of wound RCTs did not specify a primary outcome and there was evidence of spin and selective outcome reporting in the abstracts of these. Readers should be wary of only reading the abstracts of reports of RCTs of wound treatments since they are frequently misleading regarding treatment effects.
    Trials 11/2013; 14(1):371. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-14-371 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Numerous studies on publication bias in clinical drug research have been undertaken, particularly on the association between sponsorship and favourable outcomes. However, no standardized methodology for the classification of outcomes and sponsorship has been described. Dissimilarities and ambiguities in this assessment impede the ability to compare and summarize results of studies on publication bias. To guide authors undertaking such studies, this paper provides recommendations for a uniform assessment of publication bias related to funding source.Methods and results: As part of ongoing research into publication bias, 472 manuscripts on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with drugs, submitted to eight medical journals from January 2010 through April 2012, were reviewed. Information on trial results and sponsorship was extracted from manuscripts. During the start of this evaluation, several problems related to the classification of outcomes, inclusion of post-hoc analyses and follow-up studies of RCTs in the study sample, and assessment of the role of the funding source were encountered. A comprehensive list of recommendations addressing these problems was composed. To assess internal validity, reliability and usability of these recommendations were tested through evaluation of manuscripts submitted to journals included in our study. The proposed recommendations represent a first step towards a uniform method of classifying trial outcomes and sponsorship. This is essential to draw valid conclusions on the role of the funding source in publication bias and will ensure consistency across future studies.
    BMC Medical Research Methodology 09/2013; 13(1):120. DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-13-120 · 2.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Seasonal influenza infections cause a high burden of disease for the whole community every year. Effective vaccines are available and used worldwide in adults and children. Discussion is ongoing as to whether influenza vaccination for children should be implemented in the National Immunization Program (NIP). Is there enough evidence to support routine influenza vaccination in children? In this review we briefly discuss the influenza viruses and the available vaccines. Subsequently, the current data available on influenza vaccination is reviewed and weighed against the Dutch criteria for the introduction of new vaccines into the NIP.
    The Journal of infection 10/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.jinf.2013.09.019 · 4.13 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014