Search

CONTEXT: Disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs) from pharmaceutical industry study funding and author-industry financial relationships is sometimes recommended for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in biomedical journals. Authors of meta-analyses, however, are not required to report COIs disclosed in original reports of included RCTs. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals report COIs disclosed in included RCTs. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We selected the 3 most recent meta-analyses of patented pharmacological treatments published January 2009 through October 2009 in each general medicine journal with an impact factor of at least 10; in high-impact journals in each of the 5 specialty medicine areas with the greatest 2008 global therapeutic sales (oncology, cardiology, respiratory medicine, endocrinology, and gastroenterology); and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently extracted data on disclosed study funding, author-industry financial ties, and author employment from each meta-analysis, from RCTs included in each meta-analysis, and on whether meta-analyses reported disclosed COIs of included RCTs. RESULTS: Of 29 meta-analyses reviewed, which included 509 RCTs, only 2 meta-analyses (7%) reported RCT funding sources; and 0 reported RCT author-industry ties or employment by the pharmaceutical industry. Of 318 meta-analyzed RCTs that reported funding sources, 219 (69%) were industry funded; and 91 of 132 (69%) that reported author financial disclosures had 1 or more authors with pharmaceutical industry financial ties. In 7 of the 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 100% of included RCTs had at least 1 form of disclosed COI (pharmaceutical industry funding, author-industry financial ties, or employment), yet only 1 of these 7 meta-analyses reported RCT funding sources, and 0 reported RCT author-industry ties or employment. CONCLUSION: Among a group of meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals, information concerning primary study funding and author COIs for the included RCTs were only rarely reported.

We evaluated the clinical presentation, prevalence, and associated risk factors for focal corneal infiltrates with overlying fluorescein staining in a population of soft contact lens wearers.We measured the prevalence of focal stromal infiltrates with overlying fluorescein staining among contact lens wearers in a large cross-sectional, masked, multicenter study.The practice-based occurrence of infiltrates with overlying staining was 1.6%, or 38 of 2,324 patients examined. The events were milder than those reported in studies conducted in specialty eye care centers; were usually noted during unscheduled office visits; and were accompanied by symptoms of redness, photophobia, pain, and foreign body sensation. The infiltrates were located in all corneal zones, with 44.7% of the infiltrates involving the central zone, none of which caused significant loss of acuity at follow-up. The risk factors of overnight wear, lens modality (e.g., conventional, disposable), and smoking have been confirmed. Overnight wear showed a prevalence ratio of 1.88 compared with daily wear (P0.055, chi-square); lens modality showed an increased risk for disposables compared with conventional lenses of 2.1 (P = 0.036, chi-square). Smoking was associated with an increased prevalence of events; 1.2% of "never" and 2.2% and 2.4% of "former" and "current" smokers, respectively, experienced an infiltrate, for a prevalence ratio of 2.0 (P0.04). Smoking and lens modality also interacted positively with extended wear, amplifying the risk associated with those factors.We found a 1.6% practice-based prevalence and a wide range of clinical presentation of focal infiltrates in soft contact lens wearers, and we measured the relative risks of extended wear, lens modality, and smoking in a general practice population. In these cases, there was no distinct pattern in location or severity of corneal infiltrates, and visual acuity following the events was not compromised.