Adesão à política de conflitos de interesses em revisões Cochrane nas quais os autores são membros do conselho editorial: estudo transversal.
Data
2022-10-19
Autores
Pacheco, Rafael Leite 
Orientadores
Riera, Rachel
Tipo
Tese de doutorado
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Resumo
Objetivo: O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a adesão à política de conflitos de interesses da Cochrane em revisões sistemáticas nas quais autores são membros do conselho editorial responsável pela revisão sistemática.
Métodos: Foi realizada uma análise transversal de revisões sistemáticas Cochrane de intervenção publicadas nos issues 1 a 6 de 2019 na Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. As seções de declaração de conflitos de interesses de todas as revisões Cochrane foram extraídas e analisadas quanto a frequência de revisões Cochrane que possuíam pelo menos um autor que também era editor do grupo temático editorial da revisão. Também se avaliou a frequência de relato deste duplo papel seguindo as orientações da política de conflitos de interesses da Cochrane.
Resultados: No total, 260 revisões Cochrane foram incluídas. Destas, 133 (51,2%, 133/260) revisões Cochrane tinham pelo menos um autor que também estava listado como editor no grupo temático editorial. Destas, apenas cinco (3,8%, 5/133) declararam este conflito adequadamente de acordo com a política da Cochrane. Em 6,5% (17/133) revisões Cochrane, o autor de contato tinha uma posição editorial principal no grupo editorial responsável pela revisão e apenas em quatro casos este conflito foi declarado de acordo com a política da Cochrane. Nenhuma revisão Cochrane com autor de contato em posição editorial principal declarou métodos para prevenir potenciais problemas relacionados a este conflito durante o processo editorial.
Conclusão: Metade das revisões Cochrane incluídas tinha pelo menos um autor que também era editor do mesmo grupo editorial responsável pela revisão. Na maior parte das revisões Cochrane incluídas, o envolvimento no grupo editorial não foi declarado de acordo com a política oficial da Cochrane.
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess adherence to Cochrane's editorial conflict of interest policy of Cochrane reviews that had at least one author also listed as editorial member from the same Cochrane review group as the systematic review. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of Cochrane reviews of intervention published in issues 1 to 6 from 2019 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews. Conflict of interest statements for all Cochrane reviews were extracted and analyzed to check the frequency of Cochrane reviews that have at least one author that was also editor of the Cochrane review group and to check the frequency of adequate reporting of this dual role following Cochrane conflict of interest policy. Results: In total, 260 published Cochrane reviews were included. A total of 133 (51.2%, 133/260) of Cochrane reviews had at least one author that was also listed as an editor in the Cochrane review group. Of these, only five (3.8%, 5/133) appropriately declared the conflict according to Cochrane policy. In 6.5% (17/133) Cochrane reviews, the contact author had a leading editorial position within the Cochrane review group and in only four of 17 was this declared according to Cochrane policy. No Cochrane review with the contact author who also had a leading editorial position described methods to prevent any potential issues related to this scenario during the editorial process in accordance with Cochrane policy. Conclusion: Half of included Cochrane reviews had at least one author that was also editor from the same Cochrane review group. In the majority of the included Cochrane reviews, involvement in the Cochrane review group was not declared in accordance with Cochrane official policy.
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess adherence to Cochrane's editorial conflict of interest policy of Cochrane reviews that had at least one author also listed as editorial member from the same Cochrane review group as the systematic review. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of Cochrane reviews of intervention published in issues 1 to 6 from 2019 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews. Conflict of interest statements for all Cochrane reviews were extracted and analyzed to check the frequency of Cochrane reviews that have at least one author that was also editor of the Cochrane review group and to check the frequency of adequate reporting of this dual role following Cochrane conflict of interest policy. Results: In total, 260 published Cochrane reviews were included. A total of 133 (51.2%, 133/260) of Cochrane reviews had at least one author that was also listed as an editor in the Cochrane review group. Of these, only five (3.8%, 5/133) appropriately declared the conflict according to Cochrane policy. In 6.5% (17/133) Cochrane reviews, the contact author had a leading editorial position within the Cochrane review group and in only four of 17 was this declared according to Cochrane policy. No Cochrane review with the contact author who also had a leading editorial position described methods to prevent any potential issues related to this scenario during the editorial process in accordance with Cochrane policy. Conclusion: Half of included Cochrane reviews had at least one author that was also editor from the same Cochrane review group. In the majority of the included Cochrane reviews, involvement in the Cochrane review group was not declared in accordance with Cochrane official policy.