![]() | Related Articles |
Cervical disc arthroplasty: do conflicts of curiosity affect the end result of medical research?
Backbone J. 2017 Jul;17(7):1026-1032
Authors: Narain AS, Hijji FY, Yom KH, Kudaravalli KT, Singh Okay
Summary
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is an rising approach for the remedy of cervical degenerative illness. A number of research have investigated the outcomes of CDA, notably as compared with cervical arthrodesis strategies similar to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). As many entities have monetary pursuits in CDA implants, it’s crucial to contemplate the affect of conflicts of curiosity on the outcomes of research investigating the efficacy of CDA.
PURPOSE: This examine aimed to find out if there may be an affiliation between the presence of conflicts of curiosity amongst examine authors and the reported end result of research involving CDA.
STUDY DESIGN: This can be a systematic assessment of medical CDA publications till October 2016.
OUTCOME MEASURE: The end result measures are presence of conflicts of curiosity, stage of proof, and end result for all included research.
METHODS: PubMed and MEDLINE databases have been looked for articles presenting medical, radiographic, and value outcomes of CDA. Information extracted from every article included title, authors, publication yr, stage of proof, prosthesis sort, variety of operative ranges, presence of conflicts of curiosity, and end result. Conflicts of curiosity have been decided by the presence of any conflicts for any creator inside manuscript disclosure sections or by way of Open Funds reporting. Outcomes of every examine have been graded as both favorable, unfavorable, or equivocal. The presence of conflicts of curiosity was examined for an affiliation with the extent of proof and examine end result utilizing Pearson chi-square evaluation, Fisher precise check, or logistic regression for categorical variables. The authors report no conflicts of curiosity instantly associated to this work, and haven’t obtained any funds in help of this work.
RESULTS: A complete of 98 articles have been included on this evaluation. In whole, 44.9% (44) of articles had the presence of a battle of curiosity, whereas 55.1% (54) of articles didn’t. Conflicted research have been extra more likely to current stage I proof and fewer more likely to current stage IV proof than non-conflicted research (p<.001). Moreover, conflicted research have been extra more likely to report favorable outcomes after CDA than non-conflicted research (90.9% vs. 74.1%, p=.040).
CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of this examine recommend that almost all of conflicted and non-conflicted research report favorable leads to sufferers present process CDA. Nonetheless, conflicted research have been additionally extra more likely to report favorable outcomes in contrast with non-conflicted research. Particular person clinicians should critically assessment printed research for potential conflicts of curiosity earlier than incorporating CDA into their observe.
PMID: 28343045 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]