Premium
Effect of funding source on reporting bias in studies of intravitreal anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for retinal vein occlusion
Author(s) -
Venincasa Michael J.,
Kuriyan Ajay E.,
Sridhar Jayanth
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
acta ophthalmologica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.534
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1755-3768
pISSN - 1755-375X
DOI - 10.1111/aos.13917
Subject(s) - retinal vein , medicine , ophthalmology , retinal , branch retinal vein occlusion , occlusion , vein , optometry , macular edema
Purpose To examine the relationship between industry funding and outcome reporting bias in high‐quality studies investigating the use of intravitreal anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor ( VEGF ) agents for patients with macular oedema secondary to branch or central retinal vein occlusion ( RVO ). Methods This systematic review in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE examined all randomized clinical trials and meta‐analyses published in journals with impact factor of ≥2 that investigated effectiveness of intravitreal anti‐ VEGF therapy in patients with RVO . The main outcome measure was correspondence between statistical outcome and abstract conclusion wording. Results Forty‐five studies met inclusion criteria; 38 (84%) showed correspondence between outcome and abstract conclusion without difference between industry‐funded and nonindustry‐funded publications (p = 0.39) or between publications in journals with impact factor ≥3 versus <3 (p = 0.96). Conclusion In high‐quality studies of intravitreal anti‐ VEGF therapy for RVO , neither industry funding nor journal impact factor affected the rate of outcome reporting bias.