Conflicts of interest in research on electronic cigarettes

INTRODUCTION The tobacco control community has raised some concerns about whether studies on electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) published in scientific journals hide conflicts of interest (COI) and whether such reports are biased. This study assessed potential COI in the e-cigarette scientific literature. METHODS Cross-sectional study was conducted on e-cigarette publications indexed in PubMed up to August 2014. We extracted information about the authors (affiliations, location, etc.), publication characteristics (type, topic, subject, etc.), results and conclusions, presence of a COI statement, and funding by and/or financial ties to pharmaceutical, tobacco, and/or e-cigarette companies. An algorithm to determine the COI disclosure status was created based on the information in the publication. Prevalence ratios (PRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to identify associations with COI disclosure, controlling for several independent variables. RESULTS Of the 404 publications included in the analysis, 37.1% (n=150) had no COI disclosure statement, 38.6% declared no COI, 13.4% declared potential COI with pharmaceutical companies, 3.0% with tobacco companies, and 10.6% with e-cigarette companies. The conclusions in publications with COI, which were mainly tied to pharmaceutical companies, were more likely to be favourable to e-cigarette use (PR=2.23; 95% CI: 1.43–3.46). Publications that supported the use of e-cigarettes for both harm reduction (PR=1.81; 95%CI: 1.14–2.89) and smoking cessation (PR=2.02; 95% CI: 1.26–3.23) were more likely to have conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS One-third of the publications reporting studies on e-cigarettes did not have a COI disclosure statement, and this proportion was even higher in news articles, editorials and other types of publications. Papers with conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarette use were more likely to have COI. Journal editors and reviewers should consider evaluating publications, including funding sources, to determine whether the results and conclusions may be biased.

[1]  J. Etter,et al.  Should academic journals publish e-cigarette research linked to tobacco companies? , 2016, Addiction.

[2]  Florence T. Bourgeois,et al.  Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: a review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency , 2016, Research Integrity and Peer Review.

[3]  C. Pisinger.  Reading the conflict of interest statement is as important as reading the result section: Response to the letter by Dr. Kosmider: ideology versus evidence: investigating the claim that the literature on e-cigarettes is undermined by material conflict of interest. , 2016, Preventive medicine.

[4]  L. Kośmider,et al.  Ideology versus evidence: Investigating the claim that the literature on e-cigarettes is undermined by material conflict of interest. , 2016, Preventive medicine.

[5]  J. Gornall.  Public Health England’s troubled trail , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  E. Fernández,et al.  Particulate Matter from Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes: a Systematic Review and Observational Study , 2015, Current Environmental Health Reports.

[7]  M. Mckee,et al.  Evidence about electronic cigarettes: a foundation built on rock or sand? , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  Hayden McRobbie,et al.  E-cigarettes: an evidence update. A report commissioned by Public Health England. , 2015 .

[9]  Kathleen Ruff.  Scientific journals and conflict of interest disclosure: what progress has been made? , 2015, Environmental Health.

[10]  M. Døssing,et al.  A systematic review of health effects of electronic cigarettes. , 2014, Preventive medicine.

[11]  Samah W. Al-Jabi,et al.  Worldwide research productivity in the field of electronic cigarette: a bibliometric analysis , 2014, BMC Public Health.

[12]  Joel Lexchin,et al.  Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments. , 2011, JAMA.

[13]  Amy T. Wang,et al.  Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  M. Nylenna,et al.  Conflict of interest in science communication: more than a financial issue. Report from Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, April 2009. , 2010, Croatian medical journal.

[15]  M. Parascandola.  A turning point for conflicts of interest: the controversy over the National Academy of Sciences' first conflicts of interest disclosure policy. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  Lisa Bero,et al.  Factors Associated with Findings of Published Trials of Drug–Drug Comparisons: Why Some Statins Appear More Efficacious than Others , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[17]  L. Bero,et al.  Tobacco industry sponsorship of a book and conflict of interest. , 2006, Addiction.

[18]  Richard Smith,et al.  Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[19]  L. Bero,et al.  Chasing the dollar: why scientists should decline tobacco industry funding , 2003, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[20]  L. Bero,et al.  Scientific quality of original research articles on environmental tobacco smoke , 1997, Tobacco Control.

[21]  D F Thompson,et al.  Understanding financial conflicts of interest. , 1993, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  A. Relman,et al.  Dealing with conflicts of interest. , 1984, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  Sergio Sismondo,et al.  Industry sponsorship and research outcome. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[24]  Ana Marusic,et al.  Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals. , 2010, Annals of internal medicine.