A meta-research study finds unclear impact of institutional conflicts of interest on conclusions of studies investigating volume-outcome relationships.

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Charlotte M Kugler, Kaethe Goossen, Elie A Akl, Dawid Pieper
{"title":"A meta-research study finds unclear impact of institutional conflicts of interest on conclusions of studies investigating volume-outcome relationships.","authors":"Charlotte M Kugler, Kaethe Goossen, Elie A Akl, Dawid Pieper","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to explore institutional conflicts of interest (COIs) in volume-outcome studies investigating whether higher hospital volume is associated with better patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Study design and setting: </strong>We used a sample of studies (n=68) included in a systematic review on the hospital volume-outcome relationship in total knee arthroplasty. For studies in which at least one of the study authors was affiliated with a hospital, we contacted the study authors by email to obtain their institutional volume and to survey them about their opinion on institutional COIs. We categorized the studies' conclusions (positive vs. non-positive) and authors' hospital volume (high, intermediate, low). We compared conclusions for high vs. intermediate/low hospital volume categories RESULTS: Of 29 hospital-affiliated authors contacted, 20 replied. Authors from high-volume institutions were more likely to conclude that a hospital volume-outcome relationship existed compared to authors from intermediate- or low-volume institutions, although this was not statistically significant (odds ratio, OR: 2.0; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.21; 18.7). Six out of 17 authors (35%) believed that institutional factors such as the case volume were (very) likely to influence the study design, analysis, or conclusions of research in the field of volume-outcome studies; 4/17 (24%) were neutral; and 7/17 (41%) believed that this was (very) unlikely.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the first study explicitly investigating institutional financial interests with benefit through increasing services provided by the institution. The findings suggest the possibility that institutional COI may influence the conclusions of volume-outcome studies, although the results are inconclusive. Surveyed authors had divergent opinions on whether institutional factors are likely to influence research integrity. Further research is needed to investigate institutional COIs.</p>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"111756"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111756","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to explore institutional conflicts of interest (COIs) in volume-outcome studies investigating whether higher hospital volume is associated with better patient outcomes.

Study design and setting: We used a sample of studies (n=68) included in a systematic review on the hospital volume-outcome relationship in total knee arthroplasty. For studies in which at least one of the study authors was affiliated with a hospital, we contacted the study authors by email to obtain their institutional volume and to survey them about their opinion on institutional COIs. We categorized the studies' conclusions (positive vs. non-positive) and authors' hospital volume (high, intermediate, low). We compared conclusions for high vs. intermediate/low hospital volume categories RESULTS: Of 29 hospital-affiliated authors contacted, 20 replied. Authors from high-volume institutions were more likely to conclude that a hospital volume-outcome relationship existed compared to authors from intermediate- or low-volume institutions, although this was not statistically significant (odds ratio, OR: 2.0; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.21; 18.7). Six out of 17 authors (35%) believed that institutional factors such as the case volume were (very) likely to influence the study design, analysis, or conclusions of research in the field of volume-outcome studies; 4/17 (24%) were neutral; and 7/17 (41%) believed that this was (very) unlikely.

Conclusion: This is the first study explicitly investigating institutional financial interests with benefit through increasing services provided by the institution. The findings suggest the possibility that institutional COI may influence the conclusions of volume-outcome studies, although the results are inconclusive. Surveyed authors had divergent opinions on whether institutional factors are likely to influence research integrity. Further research is needed to investigate institutional COIs.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信