Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Aims To investigate whether industry-sponsored randomised control trials (RCT) on myopia control have more favourable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.
Methods PubMed, Embase and MEDLINE were searched until 6 October 2023. RCTs of myopia control interventions were included if they reported spherical equivalent (SE) and/or axial length (AL) changes. We pooled the mean differences and 95% CIs in SE and AL changes using a random-effects model. We calculated both the risk ratio (RR) and adjusted OR of having favourable research outcomes in industry-sponsored studies compared with non-industry-sponsored studies.
Results A total of 93 RCTs were included in this review and were categorised into two groups: industry-sponsored studies (n=43) and non-industry-sponsored studies (n=50). Only 10 studies obtained unfavourable outcomes (five studies in each group). No significant differences were observed in risk of bias and the pooled effect estimates between the two groups. The association between industry sponsorship and research outcomes was insignificant (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.13; OR: 2.58, 95% CI: 0.48 to 13.70). The study conclusions disagreed with the study results in two studies sponsored by industry, while such reporting bias was not detected among studies without industry funding.
Conclusion We did not identify significant associations between industry sponsorship and research outcomes. However, our findings may be related to limited studies with negative results. Reversed conclusions may be a consequence of industry bias.
- Epidemiology
- Vision
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Footnotes
Contributors CWP is responsible for the overall content as guarantor. The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the finished work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data and controlled the decision to publish. Conception and design: CWP and AG. Acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data: JYK, HMC, XXD, DLL and CL. Drafting of the manuscript: JYK. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: JYK, CL, AG and CWP.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.