TY - JOUR
T1 - Combining meta-epidemiological study datasets on commercial funding of randomised clinical trials
T2 - database, methods, and descriptive results of the COMFIT study
AU - Nejstgaard, Camilla Hansen
AU - Lundh, Andreas
AU - Abdi, Suhayb
AU - Clayton, Gemma
AU - Gelle, Mustafe Hassan Adan
AU - Laursen, David Ruben Teindl
AU - Olorisade, Babatunde Kazeem
AU - Savović, Jelena
AU - Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn
AU - COMFIT consortium
N1 - This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/3
Y1 - 2022/3
N2 - INTRODUCTION: Randomised trials are often funded by commercial companies and methodological studies support a widely held suspicion that commercial funding may influence trial results and conclusions. However, these studies often have a risk of confounding and reporting bias. The risk of confounding is markedly reduced in meta-epidemiological studies that compare fairly similar trials within meta-analyses, and risk of reporting bias is reduced with access to unpublished data. Therefore, we initiated the COMFIT (COMmercial Funding In Trials) study aimed at investigating the impact of commercial funding on estimated intervention effects in randomised clinical trials based on a consortium of researchers who agreed to share meta-epidemiological study datasets with information on meta-analyses and trials included in meta-epidemiological studies. Here, we describe the COMFIT study, its database, and descriptive results.METHODS: We included meta-epidemiological studies with published or unpublished data on trial funding source and results or conclusions. We searched five bibliographic databases and other sources. We invited authors of eligible meta-epidemiological studies to join the COMFIT consortium and to share data. The final construction of the COMFIT database involves checking data quality, identifying trial references, harmonising variable categories, and removing non-informative meta-analyses as well as correlated meta-analyses and trial results.PRELIMINARY RESULTS: We included data from 17 meta-epidemiological studies, covering 728 meta-analyses and 6841 trials. Seven studies (405 meta-analyses, 3272 trials) had not published analyses on the impact of commercial funding, but shared unpublished data on funding source.CONCLUSIONS: We established the COMFIT consortium and database. Once completed, the database will enable comprehensive analyses of the impact of commercial funding on trial results and conclusions with increased statistical power and a markedly reduced risk of confounding and reporting bias. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
AB - INTRODUCTION: Randomised trials are often funded by commercial companies and methodological studies support a widely held suspicion that commercial funding may influence trial results and conclusions. However, these studies often have a risk of confounding and reporting bias. The risk of confounding is markedly reduced in meta-epidemiological studies that compare fairly similar trials within meta-analyses, and risk of reporting bias is reduced with access to unpublished data. Therefore, we initiated the COMFIT (COMmercial Funding In Trials) study aimed at investigating the impact of commercial funding on estimated intervention effects in randomised clinical trials based on a consortium of researchers who agreed to share meta-epidemiological study datasets with information on meta-analyses and trials included in meta-epidemiological studies. Here, we describe the COMFIT study, its database, and descriptive results.METHODS: We included meta-epidemiological studies with published or unpublished data on trial funding source and results or conclusions. We searched five bibliographic databases and other sources. We invited authors of eligible meta-epidemiological studies to join the COMFIT consortium and to share data. The final construction of the COMFIT database involves checking data quality, identifying trial references, harmonising variable categories, and removing non-informative meta-analyses as well as correlated meta-analyses and trial results.PRELIMINARY RESULTS: We included data from 17 meta-epidemiological studies, covering 728 meta-analyses and 6841 trials. Seven studies (405 meta-analyses, 3272 trials) had not published analyses on the impact of commercial funding, but shared unpublished data on funding source.CONCLUSIONS: We established the COMFIT consortium and database. Once completed, the database will enable comprehensive analyses of the impact of commercial funding on trial results and conclusions with increased statistical power and a markedly reduced risk of confounding and reporting bias. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
KW - bias
KW - commercial funding
KW - data management
KW - data sharing
KW - meta-epidemiology
KW - randomised clinical trials
KW - Epidemiologic Studies
KW - Bias
U2 - 10.1002/jrsm.1527
DO - 10.1002/jrsm.1527
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 34558198
VL - 13
SP - 214
EP - 228
JO - Research Synthesis Methods
JF - Research Synthesis Methods
SN - 1759-2879
IS - 2
ER -