@Article{info:doi/10.2196/25858，作者=“Rulon, Zane and Powers, Kalyn and Anderson, J Michael and Weaver, Michael and Johnson, Austin and Hartwell, Micah and Vassar, Matt”，标题=“黑素瘤干预调查系统评价和meta分析作者的利益冲突:横断面文献研究”，期刊=“JMIR Dermatol”，年=“2021”，月=“6”，日=“7”，卷=“4”，号=“1”，页=“e25858”，关键词=“利益冲突”;行业赞助;黑色素瘤;横截面分析;系统评价;背景:以往的研究强调了行业关系可能对医学研究结果产生的潜在影响。目的:我们旨在确定作者利益冲突(COIs)在关注黑色素瘤干预的系统综述中的流行程度，并确定这些COIs的存在是否与报告有利结果和结论的可能性增加有关。方法:这项横断面研究包括系统综述，包括或不包括针对黑色素瘤干预措施的荟萃分析。我们在MEDLINE和Embase检索2016年9月1日至2020年6月2日期间发表的符合条件的系统综述。COI披露的信息与CMS(医疗保险中心医疗补助服务)开放支付数据库、教授的美元、谷歌专利、美国专利和商标局以及以前发表的COI披露声明的信息交叉引用。 Results were quantified using descriptive statistics, and relationships were evaluated by Fisher exact tests. Results: Of the 23 systematic reviews included in our sample, 12 (52{\%}) had at least one author with a COI. Of these 12 reviews, 7 (58{\%}) reported narrative results favoring the treatment group and 9 (75{\%}) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 11 systematic reviews without a conflicted author, 4 (36{\%}) reported results favoring the treatment group and 5 (45{\%}) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. We found no significant association between the presence of author COIs and the favorability of results (P=.53) or conclusions (P=.15). Conclusions: Author COIs did not appear to influence the outcomes of systematic reviews regarding melanoma interventions. Clinicians and other readers of dermatology literature should be cognizant of the influence that industry may have on the nature of reported outcomes, including those from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. ", issn="2562-0959", doi="10.2196/25858", url="https://derma.www.mybigtv.com/2021/1/e25858", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/25858" }