Abstract
Purpose :
To investigate the relationship between industry funding and outcome reporting bias in publications studying intravitreal steroid therapy for macular edema in retinal vein occlusion.
Methods :
Studies published through October 10, 2017 were identified by PubMed and OVID searches. Randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses with impact factor ≥2 were selected for inclusion in the study. Publications were analyzed for study quality, journal impact factor, number of outcomes compared, funding source, industry coauthors, main outcome statistical significance, and abstract conclusion. The main outcome was correspondence between main outcome result and abstract conclusion.
Results :
Twenty-two publications met inclusion criteria: 13 (59%) received industry funding and 9 (41%) were nonindustry-funded. The mean impact factor was 3.5 for nonindustry-funded studies and 4.4 for industry-funded studies (p=0.13). The mean study size was 357 for nonindustry-funded studies and 688 for industry-funded studies (p=0.14). The abstract conclusion corresponded with the results of the main outcome in 11 (85%) of industry-funded studies and 9 (100%) of the nonindustry-funded studies (p=0.49). The abstract conclusion corresponded with the results of the main outcome in 6 (75%) of the studies with an industry co-author and 14 (100%) of the studies with no industry co-authors (p=0.12).
Conclusions :
Industry funding did not significantly affect the overall low rate of outcome reporting bias in abstract conclusion wording for macular edema in retinal vein occlusion studies.
This abstract was presented at the 2019 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, April 28 - May 2, 2019.