Blog: Hilda Bastian, "Should We Trust Meta-Analyses with Meta-Conflicts of Interest?"

Andy

Andy

Retired committee member
There are a couple of angles to look at researcher conflict of interest from. One is that a conflict could distort their work, tilting findings and claims away from “the truth”. The other is for the way the work is received, not how it is done: authors’ perceived conflicts could damage credibility.

How does this translate to authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses? Are the issues the same, no matter the type of study?

I’ve been thinking about that a lot lately. I was one of the external stakeholders consulted as part of the Cochrane Collaboration’s review of its conflict of interest policy for their systematic reviews editorial teams. As they explain, they are looking to strengthen their approach to financial conflicts, and “consider a wider range of possible inherent biases”.

In biomedicine at least, systematic reviewers/meta-analysts are widely seen as arbiters on the state of knowledge. Their work often guides individual decisions, policy, and funding. I think that makes conflict of interest an acute issue for them – and credibility particularly critical.

There’s the usual string of potential conflicts of interest authors of any studies can have – like financial ones. But authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses can have a type of potential conflict that’s totally meta, and unique to them: they could be an author of the very studies they are choosing and weighing up.
Click to expand...
https://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-m...eta-analyses-with-meta-conflicts-of-interest/

 
Even the most objective, rational and honest people should not be reviewing their own studies ... just ridiculous. A crucial aspect of any review is that it be impartial and independent. No matter who you are, biases will creep in even if unaware of them. It's why software engineers have their work reviewed and tested by others, in addition to their own testing.
 
I implicitly trust everyone who as an influence on my life.

I trust them to make my life as difficult as possible, either for their own gain, amusement, or simply for political reasons.

I have rarely had this trust abused.

So it's safest just to rely on the trust equivalent of Murphy's law.
 
Barry said:
Even the most objective, rational and honest people should not be reviewing their own studies ... just ridiculous. A crucial aspect of any review is that it be impartial and independent. No matter who you are, biases will creep in even if unaware of them. It's why software engineers have their work reviewed and tested by others, in addition to their own testing.
Click to expand...

Yes, and scrutiny of reviews by journal editors isn't enough of a check in some cases as we know.

chrisb said:
Nemo iudex in causa sua.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust that fish's judgement
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom