FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2093728178> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2093728178 endingPage "2" @default.
• W2093728178 startingPage "1" @default.
• W2093728178 abstract "The value of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were discussed in a recent invited review1 and editorial2 in Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics (OPO). Systematic reviews identify, evaluate, combine and summarise the findings of all relevant individual studies and attempt to provide the best possible evidence about the effects of treatments and other interventions used in health care.1, 2 Meta-analyses combine numerical estimates from different studies to provide a more precise estimate of the value of interventions. They are thought to provide the gold standard level of evidence and are predominantly used to inform National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Of course, some systematic reviews and meta-analyses are better than others1, but you would hope they were all relatively unbiased. Unfortunately that is not the case. The recently published and essential read Bad Pharma3 by Ben Goldacre documents the many dubious tricks that the pharmaceutical industry have used to substantially distort the research literature and his carefully researched book provides evidence that supports the following damning conclusions (there are more): These are not small effects. For example, Als-Nielsen et al.5 investigated studies included in Cochrane reviews and meta-analyses and reported that the experimental drug was recommended as the treatment of choice in 16% of trials funded by nonprofit organizations and 51% of trials funded by for-profit organizations (p < 0.001). It would seem inevitable that this bias is present in some ophthalmic industry-funded publications. For example, a principal example of misleading and disingenuous abstracts were in studies of prostaglandin eyedrops for the treatment of glaucoma: Alasbali et al.9 found that the published abstract conclusion was not consistent with the results of the main outcome measure in 18 (62%) of 29 industry-funded studies compared with zero (0%) of 10 non industry-funded studies (p = 0.0006). This is just outrageous (and clearly something that an editor needs to be aware of and prevent). When systematic reviews and meta-analyses1 became the gold standard assessment of drug efficacy, this highlighted the problem of industry-funded studies that found negative results not being published. Meta-analyses combine all the data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of a particular drug and produce a summary figure. If studies are not published and these are typically the studies that show no significant effect for the drug or show an unfavourable risk-benefit profile,4, 5, 8 then any meta-analysis is flawed and will be more positive than it should be. My PhD work included developing a series of tests to assess the anti-cataract drug potential of Bendazac-Lysine (Bendalina). A recent PubMed search found 46 papers of animal and human studies that suggested that the drug had potentially positive effects in a range of conditions and included one RCT showing positive results in patients with age-related cataract.11 I am aware of four RCTs of Bendazac-Lysine that were conducted at the University of Bradford in patients with age-related cataract, diabetic cataract, diabetic retinopathy and protein-deposited soft contact lenses. None of the results of these studies were published. The non-publication of these results has one other implication and that is to the participants of these trials: would people agree to take part if they were aware that the study results might not be published depending on how they look at the end of the trial?3 This evidence highlights the need to be vigilant regarding conflicts of interest of authors and all parties involved in the research publication process. OPO follows the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (http://www.icmje.org) and Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE, http://publicationethics.org). I must admit to not having previously followed their recommendations regarding ethical issues pertinent to my position as editor-in-chief but will do so now. The first is a declaration of any conflicts of interest that I may have, such as any links, financial or otherwise, to industry. I have attended two 2-day conferences over the last 5 years organised by Essilor for UK-based lecturers in optical dispensing, and they paid for accommodation, subsistence and entertainment, although I gave a lecture at one event. I have also been provided with two free pairs of varifocal lenses by the company. I have been awarded grants from Vicon Motion Systems Ltd (£30 K, 2006–2009) and Johnson & Johnson Vision Care (£20 K, 2001–2003) and I receive a royalty from the sales of the textbook Clinical Procedures in Primary Eye Care. The second issue surrounds the question of whether editors should be able to publish in their own journal. COPE suggests that this is a reasonable thing to do as long as the procedure is fair and transparent and they recommend that the procedure used should be published. I have published 22 papers in 23 years in OPO prior to becoming the Editor-in-Chief and three papers in 2 years since. Two of the three papers12, 13 were discussing UK Optometry issues where there is relatively little scope for publishing elsewhere and the third14 was submitted to support the first feature issue in the journal on the role of vision in everyday activities.15 Those three papers were handled by an Associate Editor or Feature Issue Editor and the OPO ScholarOne submission system does not allow me access to publications that I co-author (so that I am unable to discover the referees' names for example). Similarly, any submissions from colleagues within my own department or research collaborators are handled by one of the Associate Editors." @default.
• W2093728178 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2093728178 creator A5039024393 @default.
• W2093728178 date "2012-12-17" @default.
• W2093728178 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2093728178 title "Industry-funded research bias and conflicts of interest" @default.
• W2093728178 cites W1590953367 @default.
• W2093728178 cites W1743400899 @default.
• W2093728178 cites W1904305942 @default.
• W2093728178 cites W1924718693 @default.
• W2093728178 cites W1945965754 @default.
• W2093728178 cites W2005710036 @default.
• W2093728178 cites W2021451271 @default.
• W2093728178 cites W2098631889 @default.
• W2093728178 cites W2105662053 @default.
• W2093728178 cites W2110124949 @default.
• W2093728178 cites W2136284733 @default.
• W2093728178 cites W2139294235 @default.
• W2093728178 cites W2142947341 @default.
• W2093728178 cites W2158165925 @default.
• W2093728178 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12016" @default.
• W2093728178 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23252850" @default.
• W2093728178 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2093728178 type Work @default.
• W2093728178 sameAs 2093728178 @default.
• W2093728178 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2093728178 countsByYear W20937281782014 @default.
• W2093728178 countsByYear W20937281782020 @default.
• W2093728178 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2093728178 hasAuthorship W2093728178A5039024393 @default.
• W2093728178 hasBestOaLocation W20937281781 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C141330323 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C148482608 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C189708586 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C19648533 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C27415008 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C2777276634 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C2777352838 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C2779256446 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C2780439572 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C535046627 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C118552586 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C126322002 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C141330323 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C142724271 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C148482608 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C15744967 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C160735492 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C17744445 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C189708586 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C19648533 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C199360897 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C199539241 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C204787440 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C27415008 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C2777276634 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C2777352838 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C2779256446 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C2779473830 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C2780439572 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C39549134 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C41008148 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C509550671 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C535046627 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C71924100 @default.
• W2093728178 hasConceptScore W2093728178C95190672 @default.
• W2093728178 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2093728178 hasLocation W20937281781 @default.
• W2093728178 hasLocation W20937281782 @default.
• W2093728178 hasOpenAccess W2093728178 @default.
• W2093728178 hasPrimaryLocation W20937281781 @default.
• W2093728178 hasRelatedWork W1996833155 @default.
• W2093728178 hasRelatedWork W2015648167 @default.
• W2093728178 hasRelatedWork W2069151357 @default.
• W2093728178 hasRelatedWork W2097465425 @default.
• W2093728178 hasRelatedWork W2098995101 @default.
• W2093728178 hasRelatedWork W2122489679 @default.
• W2093728178 hasRelatedWork W2135245538 @default.
• W2093728178 hasRelatedWork W2168764238 @default.
• W2093728178 hasRelatedWork W4283799905 @default.
• W2093728178 hasRelatedWork W4308331857 @default.
• W2093728178 hasVolume "33" @default.
• W2093728178 isParatext "false" @default.

• next