Adherence to non-financial conflicts of interest policy in Cochrane reviews where authors are also editorial board members
2Universidade Metropolitana de Santos / Hospital Sírio-Libanês / Cochrane Affiliate Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3Centro Universitário Arthur Sá Earp Neto (Unifase) / Cochrane Affiliate Rio de Janeiro / Oxford-Brazil EBM Alliance, Brazil
4Oxford-Brazil EBM Alliance, Brazil
5University of Oxford / Oxford-Brazil EBM Alliance, UK
6Universidade Federal de São Paulo / Hospital Sírio-Libanês / Cochrane Affiliate Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Background: conflict of interest (COI) represents a major threat to the validity of research and its impact is well recognized and has been extensively addressed in the literature [1,2]. The impact of non-financial conflict of interest (nfCOI) in conducting systematic reviews is not ignored by Cochrane, that has a strict policy, updated recently, whose management process is a responsibility of Cochrane Review Group (CRG) editorial boards. A author involvement in a supporting CRG editorial board represents an additional threat that must not be negleted, although this involvement is allowed by Cochrane policy [3].
Objectives: to assess adherence to Cochrane's editorial nfCOI policy when an author has a role on the editorial board of the hosting CRG.
Methods: A cross-sectional analysis [4] conducted at the Evidence-Based Medicine Discipline, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), Brazil, through a partnership with Oxford-Brazil EBM Alliance [5]
Results: all 260 published Cochrane reviews (CR) in issues 1 to 6 from 2019 of the CDSR were analysed. Overall, 133 (51.2%, 133/260) of CR had at least one author that was also listed as an editor in the CRG. Of these, 5 (3.8%, 5/133) appropriately declared the conflict according to Cochrane policies. In 6.5% (17/133) CR, the contact author had a leading editorial position within the CRG and in 4 of 17 was this stated according to Cochrane policy. No CR with the contact author who also had a leading editorial position detailed strategies to prevent any potential issues related to this issue during the editorial process in accordance with Cochrane policy.
Conclusions: CR demonstrate poor adherence to Cochrane’s own policy on nfCOI when review authors also have an editorial role in the supporting CRG. Further updates of Cochrane´s COI policy should address strategis to improve adherence alongside transparency of editorial processes. We proposed a specific nfCOI form to facilitate disclosure when authors are also editors (available in [4]).
Patient, public and/or healthcare consumer involvement: It is important that Cochrane ensures the management and report of nfCOI to ensure credibility as a global leader in the production and dissemination of systematic reviews.