Search

Abstract Background In August 2021, we published in Environmental Health a Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods with the goal of providing an organizational framework for transparently evaluating epidemiological studies, a body of evidence, and resultant conclusions. Tsuda et al., the first group to utilize the Toolkit in a systematic fashion, have offered suggestions for its modification. Main body Among the suggested modifications made by Tsuda et al., we agree that rearrangement of Part A of the Toolkit to reflect the sequence of the epidemiological study process would facilitate its usefulness. Expansion or adaptation of the Toolkit to other disciplines would be valuable but would require the input of discipline-specific expertise. We caution against using the sections of the Toolkit to produce a tally or cumulative score, because none of the items are weighted as to importance or impact. Rather, we suggest a visual representation of how a study meets the Toolkit items, such as the heat maps used to present risk of bias criteria for studies included in Cochrane reviews. We suggest that the Toolkit be incorporated in the sub-specialty known as “forensic epidemiology,” as well as in graduate training curricula, continuing education programs, and conferences, with the recognition that it is an extension of widely accepted ethics guidelines for epidemiological research. Conclusion We welcome feedback from the research community about ways to strengthen the Toolkit as it is applied to a broader assemblage of research studies and disciplines, contributing to its value as a living tool/instrument. The application of the Toolkit by Tsuda et al. exemplifies the usefulness of this framework for transparently evaluating, in a systematic way, epidemiological research, conclusions relating to causation, and policy decisions. Postscript We note that our Toolkit has, most recently, inspired authors with discipline-specific expertise in the field of Conservation Biology to adapt it for use in the Biological Sciences.

Abstract Background Australian health and medical research funders support substantial research efforts, and incentives within grant funding schemes influence researcher behaviour. We aimed to determine to what extent Australian health and medical funders incentivise responsible research practices. Methods We conducted an audit of instructions from research grant and fellowship schemes. Eight national research grants and fellowships were purposively sampled to select schemes that awarded the largest amount of funds. The funding scheme instructions were assessed against 9 criteria to determine to what extent they incentivised these responsible research and reporting practices: (1) publicly register study protocols before starting data collection, (2) register analysis protocols before starting data analysis, (3) make study data openly available, (4) make analysis code openly available, (5) make research materials openly available, (6) discourage use of publication metrics, (7) conduct quality research (e.g. adhere to reporting guidelines), (8) collaborate with a statistician, and (9) adhere to other responsible research practices. Each criterion was answered using one of the following responses: “Instructed”, “Encouraged”, or “No mention”. Results Across the 8 schemes from 5 funders, applicants were instructed or encouraged to address a median of 4 (range 0 to 5) of the 9 criteria. Three criteria received no mention in any scheme (register analysis protocols, make analysis code open, collaborate with a statistician). Importantly, most incentives did not seem strong as applicants were only instructed to register study protocols, discourage use of publication metrics and conduct quality research. Other criteria were encouraged but were not required. Conclusions Funders could strengthen the incentives for responsible research practices by requiring grant and fellowship applicants to implement these practices in their proposals. Administering institutions could be required to implement these practices to be eligible for funding. Strongly rewarding researchers for implementing robust research practices could lead to sustained improvements in the quality of health and medical research.

Abstract Background Critical knowledge of what we know about health and disease, risk factors, causation, prevention, and treatment, derives from epidemiology. Unfortunately, its methods and language can be misused and improperly applied. A repertoire of methods, techniques, arguments, and tactics are used by some people to manipulate science, usually in the service of powerful interests, and particularly those with a financial stake related to toxic agents. Such interests work to foment uncertainty, cast doubt, and mislead decision makers by seeding confusion about cause-and-effect relating to population health. We have compiled a toolkit of the methods used by those whose interests are not aligned with the public health sciences. Professional epidemiologists, as well as those who rely on their work, will thereby be more readily equipped to detect bias and flaws resulting from financial conflict-of-interest, improper study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, bringing greater clarity—not only to the advancement of knowledge, but, more immediately, to policy debates. Methods The summary of techniques used to manipulate epidemiological findings, compiled as part of the 2020 Position Statement of the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy (INEP) entitled Conflict-of-Interest and Disclosure in Epidemiology, has been expanded and further elucidated in this commentary. Results Some level of uncertainty is inherent in science. However, corrupted and incomplete literature contributes to confuse, foment further uncertainty, and cast doubt about the evidence under consideration. Confusion delays scientific advancement and leads to the inability of policymakers to make changes that, if enacted, would—supported by the body of valid evidence—protect, maintain, and improve public health. An accessible toolkit is provided that brings attention to the misuse of the methods of epidemiology. Its usefulness is as a compendium of what those trained in epidemiology, as well as those reviewing epidemiological studies, should identify methodologically when assessing the transparency and validity of any epidemiological inquiry, evaluation, or argument. The problems resulting from financial conflicting interests and the misuse of scientific methods, in conjunction with the strategies that can be used to safeguard public health against them, apply not only to epidemiologists, but also to other public health professionals. Conclusions This novel toolkit is for use in protecting the public. It is provided to assist public health professionals as gatekeepers of their respective specialty and subspecialty disciplines whose mission includes protecting, maintaining, and improving the public’s health. It is intended to serve our roles as educators, reviewers, and researchers.

Background The development of reliable, high quality health-related guidelines depends on explicit and transparent processes, methods aimed at minimising risks of bias and the inclusion of all relevant expertise and perspectives. While the methodological aspects of guidelines have been a focus to improve their quality, less is known about the social processes involved, for example, how guideline group members interact and communicate with one another, and how the evidence is considered in informing recommendations. With this in in mind, we aimed to empirically examine the perspectives and experiences of the key participants involved in developing public health guidelines for the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Design This study was conducted using constructivist grounded theory as described by Charmaz, which informed our sampling, data collection, coding and analysis of interviews with key participants involved in developing public health guidelines. Setting Australian public health guidelines commissioned by the NHMRC. Participants Twenty experts that were involved in Australian NHMRC public health guideline development, including working committee members with content topic expertise (n = 16) and members of evidence review groups responsible for evaluating the evidence (n = 4). Results Public health guideline development in Australia is a divided process. The division is driven by 3 related factors: the divergent disciplinary background and expertise that each group brings to the process; the methodological limitations of the framework, inherited from clinical medicine, that is used to assess the evidence; and barriers to communication between content experts and evidence reviewers around respective roles and methodological limitations. Conclusion Our findings suggest several improvements for a more functional and unified guideline development process: greater education of the working committee on the methodological process employed to evaluate evidence, improved communication on the role of the evidence review groups and better facilitation of the process so that the evidence review groups feel their contribution is valued.

Abstract Background A previous study found that 2 of 29 (6.9%) meta-analyses published in high-impact journals in 2009 reported included drug trials’ funding sources, and none reported trial authors’ financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) or industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved since 2009. Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which pharmaceutical industry funding and author-industry FCOIs and employment from included drug trials are reported in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals and (2) compare current reporting with results from 2009. Methods We searched PubMed (January 2017–October 2018) for systematic reviews with meta-analyses including ≥ 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patented drugs. We included 3 meta-analyses published January 2017–October 2018 from each of 4 high-impact general medicine journals, high-impact journals from 5 specialty areas, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as in the previous study. Results Among 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 13 of 29 (44.8%) reported the funding source of included trials compared to 2 of 29 (6.9%) in 2009, a difference of 37.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.7 to 56.3%); this included 7 of 11 (63.6%) from general medicine journals, 3 of 15 (20.0%) from specialty medicine journals, and 3 of 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews. Only 2 of 29 meta-analyses (6.9%) reported trial author FCOIs, and none reported trial author-industry employment. Protocol Publication A protocol was uploaded to the Open Science Framework prior to initiating the study. https://osf.io/8xt5p/ Limitations We examined only a relatively small number of meta-analyses from selected high-impact journals and compared results to a similarly small sample from an earlier time period. Conclusions Reporting of drug trial sponsorship and author FCOIs in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals has increased since 2009 but is still suboptimal. Standards on reporting of trial funding described in the forthcoming revised PRISMA statement should be adapted and enforced by journals to improve reporting.

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) have produced the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For these, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors have been conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methodology is to assess the quality of evidence across studies. In this article, we present the approach applied in these WHO/ILO systematic reviews for performing such assessments on studies of prevalence of exposure. It is called the Quality of Evidence in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (QoE-SPEO) approach. We describe QoE-SPEO’s development to date, demonstrate its feasibility reporting results from pilot testing and case studies, note its strengths and limitations, and suggest how QoE-SPEO should be tested and developed further. Methods: Following a comprehensive literature review, and using expert opinion, selected existing quality of evidence assessment approaches used in environmental and occupational health were reviewed and analysed for their relevance to prevalence studies. Relevant steps and components from the existing approaches were adopted or adapted for QoE-SPEO. New steps and components were developed. We elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and reached consensus on the QoE-SPEO approach. Ten individual experts pilot-tested QoE-SPEO. To assess inter-rater agreement, we counted ratings of expected (actual and non-spurious) heterogeneity and quality of evidence and calculated a raw measure of agreement (Pi) between individual raters and rater teams for the downgrade domains. Pi ranged between 0.00 (no two pilot testers selected the same rating) and 1.00 (all pilot testers selected the same rating). Case studies were conducted of experiences of QoE-SPEO’s use in two WHO/ILO systematic reviews. Results: We found no existing quality of evidence assessment approach for occupational exposure prevalence studies. We identified three relevant, existing approaches for environmental and occupational health studies of the effect of exposures. Assessments using QoE-SPEO comprise three steps: (1) judge the level of expected heterogeneity (defined as non-spurious variability that can be expected in exposure prevalence, within or between individual persons, because exposure may change over space and/or time), (2) assess downgrade domains, and (3) reach a final rating on the quality of evidence. Assessments are conducted using the same five downgrade domains as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach: (a) risk of bias, (b) indirectness, (c) inconsistency, (d) imprecision, and (e) publication bias. For downgrade domains (c) and (d), the assessment varies depending on the level of expected heterogeneity. There are no upgrade domains. The QoE-SPEO’s ratings are “very low”, “low”, “moderate”, and “high”. To arrive at a final decision on the overall quality of evidence, the assessor starts at “high” quality of evidence and for each domain downgrades by one or two levels for serious concerns or very serious concerns, respectively. In pilot tests, there was reasonable agreement in ratings for expected heterogeneity; 70% of raters selected the same rating. Inter-rater agreement ranged considerably between downgrade domains, both for individual rater pairs (range Pi: 0.36–1.00) and rater teams (0.20–1.00). Sparse data prevented rigorous assessment of inter-rater agreement in quality of evidence ratings. Conclusions: We present QoE-SPEO as an approach for assessing quality of evidence in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. It has been developed to its current version (as presented here), has undergone pilot testing, and was applied in the systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. While the approach requires further testing and development, it makes steps towards filling an identified gap, and progress made so far can be used to inform future work in this area.

Abstract Background The sciences, and especially the research subspecialties of occupational and environmental health, are being misused. The misuse serves to interfere with the advancement of policies that depend on rational evidence needed for policies to protect public health. Methods We selectively surveyed the independent scientific literature. In addition, the efforts of respected international professional organizations of scientists whose focus is on maintaining and improving public health have been considered. This commentary is unique in assembling not only the factual basis for sounding alarms about significant bias in occupational and environmental health research, but also about the manipulative mechanisms used, and, in turn, the methods needed to keep science honest. Results Scientific integrity is based on the principle that research is conducted as objectively as possible; it cannot be compromised by special interests whose primary goals are neither to seek truth nor to protect human health. Evidence demonstrates a significant risk of bias in research reports sponsored by financial interests. Practices of corporate malfeasance include the orchestrated contamination of editorial boards of peer-reviewed scientific journals with industry apologists; interference with activities of national regulatory bodies and international review panels engaged in safeguarding occupational and public health; constructing roadblocks by capitalizing on uncertainty to undermine scientific consensus for much-needed government regulation of carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting and/or immunotoxic agents; promoting “causation” criteria that lack foundation and effectively block workers’ access to legal remedies for harms from occupational exposures resulting in morbidity and premature mortality; and, violating standards of professional conduct by seducing reputable scientists with financial incentives that make them beholden to corporate agendas. Conclusions Well-orchestrated assaults on science continue unabated and must now be met head-on. Success could be achieved by promoting and protecting the integrity of research. Furthermore, avoiding influence by conflicted corporate affiliates in occupational and public health regulations is needed. Identifying, managing and, ideally, eliminating corporate influence on science and science policy are needed to protect research integrity. Protecting the public’s health, preventing disease, and promoting well-being must be the unambiguous goals of research in occupational and environmental health.

Background: Approximately one quarter of all deaths globally are attributed to living or working in an unhealthy environment, with household and ambient air pollution, along with exposures to ultraviolet radiation and chemicals amongst the leading causes. At present there are no international standards for assessing the risks of these environmental hazards. The use of heterogeneous methods to identify health risks from environmental hazards may reduce the level of confidence the public has in the conclusions that are made. Objectives: To describe and compare the processes and methods used by national and international organisations that conduct hazard identification and/or risk assessment (HI/RA) of environmental hazards and to identify knowledge gaps to inform the development of future methods. Methods: We searched the websites of 19 organisations (ten national, five international and four World Health Organization (WHO) units) and extracted data from all relevant, publicly available resources which described the processes and methods used in HI/RA of environmental hazards. We contacted each organisation for any additional information. Results: Five organisations were excluded from further analysis: three made recommendations but did not conduct HI/RA; one used heterogenous methods across their reviews for HI; and one WHO unit did not have any published guidelines. Of the 14 organisations analysed, five (36%) describe the process for establishing the questions to be answered in the assessments. Only one (7%) organisation uses systematic review methods, although five (36%) state that they use such methods. Ten (71%) assess the scientific quality of the included studies, however only three (21%) use explicit criteria. Only three (21%) organisations assess the quality of the body of evidence using explicit criteria. Four (29%) organisations describe the process for making the final HI conclusions and three (38%) the final RA conclusions. Eight (57%) have a conflict of interest policy and seven (50%) organisations describe a process for managing them. The US Office of Health Assessment and Translation and the World Health Organisation meet the most criteria for describing their processes and methods. Conclusions: The processes and methods used by organisations conducting HI/RA of environmental hazards are inconsistent. There is a need for empirically based tools and methods to be adopted for the evaluation and synthesis of evidence, and the formulation of conclusions across all organisations that conduct HI or RA. These tools and methods will lead to increased transparency, comparability and validity of the assessments. Keywords: Environmental health, Environmental hazards, Hazard identification, Risk assessment, Methods, Review

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For this, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors will be conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methods is to assess risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies. In this article, we present and describe the development of such a tool, called the Risk of Bias in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (RoB-SPEO) tool; report results from RoB-SPEO's pilot testing; note RoB-SPEO's limitations; and suggest how the tool might be tested and developed further. Methods: Selected existing RoB tools used in environmental and occupational health systematic reviews were reviewed and analysed. From existing tools, we identified domains for the new tool and, if necessary, added new domains. For each domain, we then identified and integrated components from the existing tools (i.e. instructions, domains, guiding questions, considerations, ratings and rating criteria), and, if necessary, we developed new components. Finally, we elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and agreed upon RoB-SPEO. Nine experts pilot tested RoB-SPEO, and we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each of its domain, rating Pi 0.80 as almost perfect agreement. Results: Our review found no standard tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. We identified six existing tools for environmental and occupational health systematic reviews and found that their components for assessing RoB differ considerably. With the new RoB-SPEO tool, assessors judge RoB for each of eight domains: (1) bias in selection of participants into the study; (2) bias due to a lack of blinding of study personnel; (3) bias due to exposure misclassification; (4) bias due to incomplete exposure data; (5) bias due to conflict of interest; (6) bias due to selective reporting of exposures; (7) bias due to difference in numerator and denominator; and (8) other bias. The RoB-SPEO's ratings are low, probably low, probably high, high or no information. Pilot testing of the RoB-SPEO tool found substantial inter-rater agreement for six domains (range of Pi for these domains: 0.51–0.80), but poor agreement for two domains (i.e. Pi of 0.31 and 0.33 for biases due to incomplete exposure data and in selection of participants into the study, respectively). Limitations of RoB-SPEO include that it has not yet been fully performance-tested. Conclusions: We developed the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. The tool will be applied and its performance tested in the ongoing systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

Abstract Background Exposure to pollution is a significant risk to human health. However few studies have attempted to identify the types of policy interventions that can reduce the health risks of pollution exposure in the United States. The study objective was to conduct a realist review of policy interventions conducted or aimed at reducing chemical exposures in humans or the environment where exposure was measured. Methods A systematic literature search identified published articles that assessed policy interventions using exposure data. Two coders independently extracted data from the studies, assessing methods, context, details of interventions, outcomes, and risks of bias. Data were analyzed iteratively and manually to identify the most effective and transferrable types of interventions. The reasons for variability in the success of different interventions were explored. Results The review found that regulatory interventions that eliminate point sources of pollution appeared to reduce exposure to environmental hazards. Regular monitoring to provide environmental and human exposure data helped assess compliance with the regulatory standards. Educational and economic interventions were less successful. Conclusions Although some types of regulatory interventions appear to reduce exposures, our findings are limited by the nature of existing interventions, the weaknesses of the study designs used in the literature, and the lack of details on implementation. Information on contextual factors that influence implementation would assist with future reviews and could help identify effective interventions.

Background An estimated 800 women die every day due to complications related to pregnancy or childbirth. Complications such as postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) and pre–eclampsia and eclampsia can be prevented by the appropriate use of essential medicines. The objective of this study was to identify the common barriers and facilitators to the availability and use of oxytocin, ergometrine, and magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) – essential medicines indicated for the prevention and treatment of PPH and pre–eclampsia and eclampsia. Methods We analyzed seven UNFPA/WHO reports published in 2008–2010. These reports summarized country–wide rapid assessments of access to and use of essential medicines for maternal health in Mongolia, Nepal, Laos, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), the Philippines, Vanuatu, and the Solomon Islands. We used a “fishbone” (Ishikawa) diagram as the analytic framework to identify facilitators and barriers at four health–system levels: government/regulatory, pharmaceutical supply, health facility, and health professional. Results Common facilitators to the quality use of essential medicines for maternal health were observed at the government/regulatory and health professional level. A majority of countries had these medicines listed in their essential medicines lists. Awareness of the medicines was generally high among health professionals. Common barriers were identified at all health–system levels. First, standard treatment guidelines were not available, updated, or standardized. Second, there was an inadequate capacity to forecast and procure medicines. Third, a required MgSO4 antidote was often not available and the storage conditions for oxytocin were deficient. Conclusions The “fishbone” Ishikawa diagram is a useful tool for describing the findings of rapid assessments of quality use of essential medicines for maternal health across countries. The facilitators and barriers identified should guide the development of tailored intervention programs to improve and expand the use of these life–saving medicines.

Loss to follow-up can introduce bias into research, making it difficult to develop inclusive evidence-based health policies and practice guidelines. We aimed to deepen understanding of reasons why participants leave or remain in longitudinal health studies. We interviewed 59 researchers and current and former research participants in six focus groups ( n = 55) or interviews ( n = 4) at three study centers in a large academic research institution. We used minimally structured interview guides and inductive thematic analysis to explore participant-level, study-level, and contextual participation barriers and facilitators. Four main themes emerged: transportation, incentives and motivation, caregiver concerns, and the social and physical environment. Themes shared crosscutting issues involving funding, flexibility, and relationships between researchers and research participants. Study-level and contextual factors appear to interact with participant characteristics, particularly socioeconomic status and disease severity to affect participant retention. Participants’ characteristics do not seem to be the main cause of study dropout. Researchers and funders might be able to address contextual and study factors in ways that reduce barriers to participation.

Objectives To understand how and why Australian cancer physicians interact with the pharmaceutical industry.Design Qualitative study using semistructured interviews, performed by a medical oncologist. Thematic analysis using a combination of deductive and inductive codes.Setting Given the evidence on industry influences on clinical practice and the importance to the market of oncology drugs, we sought to better understand cancer physicians’ experiences. Practising consultant medical oncologists and clinical haematologists from four Australian states were interviewed over Zoom.Participants 16 cancer physicians were interviewed between November 2021 and March 2022, from 37 invited (response rate 43%). Most were medical oncologists (n=12 of 16, 75%) and male (n=9 of 16, 56%).Outcome measures The analysis of all interviews was based on grounded theory. Transcripts were coded and then codes formed into themes with supporting quotes. The themes were then placed into categories, used to describe the broad areas into which the themes could be grouped.Results Six themes were identified that fell within two broad categories: cancer physicians’ views and experiences of interactions and management of these interactions. Views and experiences included: the transactional nature of relationships, risks of research dependence, ethical challenges and varied attitudes based on interaction type. Management themes included: lack of useful guidance and reduced interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These led to an overarching seventh theme, on the desire for a ‘middle road’. Cancer physicians identified the transactional nature of industry relationships and felt uncomfortable with several types of interactions, including those with sales representatives. Most wanted less contact with industry, and the forced separation that occurred with the COVID-19 pandemic was generally welcome.Conclusions Cancer physicians may have difficulty balancing the perceived need to interact with industry in modern cancer care while maintaining distance to minimise conflicts of interest. Further research is needed to assess management strategies in this area.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162198.].

A current debate about conflicts of interest related to biomedical research is to question whether the focus on financial conflicts of interest overshadows "nonfinancial" interests that could put scientific judgment at equal or greater risk of bias. There is substantial evidence that financial conflicts of interest such as commercial sponsorship of research and investigators lead to systematic biases in scientific research at all stages of the research process. Conflation of "conflicts of interest" with "interests" in general serves to muddy the waters about how to manage conflicts of interest. We call for heightened disclosure of conflicts of interest and policy action beyond disclosure as the sole management strategy. We propose a different strategy to manage interests more broadly to ensure fair representation and accountability.

BackgroundArtificially sweetened beverage consumption has steadily increased in the last 40 years. Several reviews examining the effects of artificially sweetened beverages on weight outcomes have discrepancies in their results and conclusions.ObjectivesTo determine whether risk of bias, results, and conclusions of reviews of effects of artificially sweetened beverage consumption on weight outcomes differ depending on review sponsorship and authors' financial conflicts of interest.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of reviews of the effects of artificially sweetened beverages on weight. Two assessors independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We compared risk of bias, results and conclusions of reviews by different industry sponsors, authors' financial conflict of interest and journal sponsor. We also report the concordance between review results and conclusions.ResultsArtificial sweetener industry sponsored reviews were more likely to have favorable results (3/4) than non-industry sponsored reviews (1/23), RR: 17.25 (95% CI: 2.34 to 127.29), as well as favorable conclusions (4/4 vs. 15/23), RR: 1.52 (95% CI: 1.14 to 2.06). All reviews funded by competitor industries reported unfavorable conclusions (4/4). In 42% of the reviews (13/31), authors' financial conflicts of interest were not disclosed. Reviews performed by authors that had a financial conflict of interest with the food industry (disclosed in the article or not) were more likely to have favorable conclusions (18/22) than reviews performed by authors without conflicts of interest (4/9), RR: 7.36 (95% CI: 1.15 to 47.22). Risk of bias was similar and high in most of the reviews.ConclusionsReview sponsorship and authors' financial conflicts of interest introduced bias affecting the outcomes of reviews of artificially sweetened beverage effects on weight that could not be explained by other sources of bias.

BackgroundForthright reporting of financial ties and conflicts of interest of researchers is associated with public trust in and esteem for the scientific enterprise.Methods/principal findingsWe searched Lexis/Nexis Academic News for the top news stories in science published in 2004 and 2005. We conducted a content analysis of 1152 newspaper stories. Funders of the research were identified in 38% of stories, financial ties of the researchers were reported in 11% of stories, and 5% reported financial ties of sources quoted. Of 73 stories not reporting on financial ties, 27% had financial ties publicly disclosed in scholarly journals.Conclusions/significanceBecause science journalists often did not report conflict of interest information, adherence to gold-standard recommendations for science journalism was low. Journalists work under many different constraints, but nonetheless news reports of scientific research were incomplete, potentially eroding public trust in science.

BackgroundSales visits by pharmaceutical representatives ("drug detailing") are common, but little is known about the content of these visits or about the impact of visit characteristics on prescribing behavior. In this study, we evaluated the content and impact of detail visits for gabapentin by analyzing market research forms completed by physicians after receiving a detail visit for this drug.Methods and findingsMarket research forms that describe detail visits for gabapentin became available through litigation that alleged that gabapentin was promoted for "off-label" uses. Forms were available for 97 physicians reporting on 116 detail visits between 1995 and 1999. Three-quarters of recorded visits (91/116) occurred in 1996. Two-thirds of visits (72/107) were 5 minutes or less in duration, 65% (73/113) were rated of high informational value, and 39% (42/107) were accompanied by the delivery or promise of samples. During the period of this study, gabapentin was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for the adjunctive treatment of partial seizures, but in 38% of visits (44/115) the "main message" of the visit involved at least one off-label use. After receiving the detail visit, 46% (50/108) of physicians reported the intention to increase their prescribing or recommending of gabapentin in the future. In multivariable analysis, intent to increase future use or recommendation of gabapentin was associated with receiving the detail in a small group (versus one-on-one) setting and with low or absent baseline use of the drug, but not with other factors such as visit duration, discussion of "on-label" versus "off-label" content, and the perceived informational value of the presentation.ConclusionsDetail visits for gabapentin were of high perceived informational value and often involved messages about unapproved uses. Despite their short duration, detail visits were frequently followed by physician intentions to increase their future recommending or prescribing of the drug.