Role of industry sponsorship and research outcomes of myopia control interventions

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY British Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2025-03-13 DOI:10.1136/bjo-2024-326347
Jia-Yan Kai, Hui-Min Chen, Xing-Xuan Dong, Dan-Lin Li, Carla Lanca, Andrzej Grzybowski, Chen-Wei Pan
{"title":"Role of industry sponsorship and research outcomes of myopia control interventions","authors":"Jia-Yan Kai, Hui-Min Chen, Xing-Xuan Dong, Dan-Lin Li, Carla Lanca, Andrzej Grzybowski, Chen-Wei Pan","doi":"10.1136/bjo-2024-326347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims To investigate whether industry-sponsored randomised control trials (RCT) on myopia control have more favourable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship. Methods PubMed, Embase and MEDLINE were searched until 6 October 2023. RCTs of myopia control interventions were included if they reported spherical equivalent (SE) and/or axial length (AL) changes. We pooled the mean differences and 95% CIs in SE and AL changes using a random-effects model. We calculated both the risk ratio (RR) and adjusted OR of having favourable research outcomes in industry-sponsored studies compared with non-industry-sponsored studies. Results A total of 93 RCTs were included in this review and were categorised into two groups: industry-sponsored studies (n=43) and non-industry-sponsored studies (n=50). Only 10 studies obtained unfavourable outcomes (five studies in each group). No significant differences were observed in risk of bias and the pooled effect estimates between the two groups. The association between industry sponsorship and research outcomes was insignificant (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.13; OR: 2.58, 95% CI: 0.48 to 13.70). The study conclusions disagreed with the study results in two studies sponsored by industry, while such reporting bias was not detected among studies without industry funding. Conclusion We did not identify significant associations between industry sponsorship and research outcomes. However, our findings may be related to limited studies with negative results. Reversed conclusions may be a consequence of industry bias. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.","PeriodicalId":9313,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2024-326347","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims To investigate whether industry-sponsored randomised control trials (RCT) on myopia control have more favourable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship. Methods PubMed, Embase and MEDLINE were searched until 6 October 2023. RCTs of myopia control interventions were included if they reported spherical equivalent (SE) and/or axial length (AL) changes. We pooled the mean differences and 95% CIs in SE and AL changes using a random-effects model. We calculated both the risk ratio (RR) and adjusted OR of having favourable research outcomes in industry-sponsored studies compared with non-industry-sponsored studies. Results A total of 93 RCTs were included in this review and were categorised into two groups: industry-sponsored studies (n=43) and non-industry-sponsored studies (n=50). Only 10 studies obtained unfavourable outcomes (five studies in each group). No significant differences were observed in risk of bias and the pooled effect estimates between the two groups. The association between industry sponsorship and research outcomes was insignificant (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.13; OR: 2.58, 95% CI: 0.48 to 13.70). The study conclusions disagreed with the study results in two studies sponsored by industry, while such reporting bias was not detected among studies without industry funding. Conclusion We did not identify significant associations between industry sponsorship and research outcomes. However, our findings may be related to limited studies with negative results. Reversed conclusions may be a consequence of industry bias. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
2.40%
发文量
213
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO) is an international peer-reviewed journal for ophthalmologists and visual science specialists. BJO publishes clinical investigations, clinical observations, and clinically relevant laboratory investigations related to ophthalmology. It also provides major reviews and also publishes manuscripts covering regional issues in a global context.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of structure-function correlation among IMO visual function analyser and Humphrey field analyser Role of industry sponsorship and research outcomes of myopia control interventions Cataract surgery in patients with advanced cognitive impairment who cannot consent for surgery: an evaluation of surgical outcomes, review of the literature and recommendations for the cataract pathway Evaluating lipid-lowering drug targets for full-course diabetic retinopathy. Two-year outcome of phacogoniotomy for advanced primary angle-closure glaucoma with cataracts: a multicentre study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1