Conflicts of interest and critiques of the use of systematic reviews in policymaking: an analysis of opinion articles

BACKGROUND: Strong opinions for or against the use of systematic reviews to inform policymaking have been published in the medical literature. The purpose of this paper was to examine whether funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest were associated with whether an opinion article was supportive or critical of the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We examined the nature of the arguments within each article, the types of disclosures present, and whether these articles are being cited in the academic literature. METHODS: We searched for articles that expressed opinions about the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We included articles that presented opinions about the use of systematic reviews for policymaking and categorized each article as supportive or critical of such use. We extracted all arguments regarding the use of systematic reviews from each article and inductively coded each as internal or external validity argument, categorized disclosed funding sources, conflicts of interest, and article types, and systematically searched for undisclosed financial ties. We counted the number of times each article has been cited in the “Web of Science.” We report descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Articles that were critical of the use of systematic reviews (n = 25) for policymaking had disclosed or undisclosed industry ties 2.3 times more often than articles that were supportive of the use (n = 34). We found that editorials, comments, letters, and perspectives lacked published disclosures nearly twice as often (60% v. 33%) as other types of articles. We also found that editorials, comments, letters, and perspectives were less frequently cited in the academic literature than other article types (median number of citations = 5 v. 19). CONCLUSIONS: It is important to consider whether an article has industry ties when evaluating the strength of the argument for or against the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We found that journal conflict of interest disclosures are often inadequate, particularly for editorials, comments, letters, and perspectives and that these articles are being cited as evidence in the academic literature. Our results further suggest the need for more consistent and complete disclosure for all article types

Looking and listening to light: the evolution of whole-body photonic imaging

Optical imaging of live animals has grown into an important tool in biomedical research as advances in photonic technology and reporter strategies have led to widespread exploration of biological processes in vivo. Although much attention has been paid to microscopy, macroscopic imaging has allowed small-animal imaging with larger fields of view (from several millimeters to several centimeters depending on implementation). Photographic methods have been the mainstay for fluorescence and bioluminescence macroscopy in whole animals, but emphasis is shifting to photonic methods that use tomographic principles to noninvasively image optical contrast at depths of several millimeters to centimeters with high sensitivity and sub-millimeter to millimeter resolution. Recent theoretical and instrumentation advances allow the use of large data sets and multiple projections and offer practical systems for quantitative, three-dimensional whole-body images. For photonic imaging to fully realize its potential, however, further progress will be needed in refining optical inversion methods and data acquisition techniques