Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014 Feb;216(3):109-12.
doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.47.

Reporting of sources of funding in systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry

C M Faggion Jr  1 , M Atieh  2 , D G Zanicotti  2
Affiliations
Review

Reporting of sources of funding in systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry

C M Faggion Jr et al. Br Dent J. 2014 Feb.

Abstract

Industry-supported clinical trials may present better outcomes than those supported by other sources. The aim of this paper was to assess whether systematic reviews (SRs) published in periodontology and implant dentistry report and discuss the influence of funding sources on study results. Two reviewers conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews independently and in duplicate to identify SRs published up to 11 November 2012. Speciality dental journals and the reference lists of included SRs were also scrutinised. Information on the reporting and discussion of funding sources of primary studies included in the SRs was extracted independently and in duplicate. Any disagreement regarding SR selection or data extraction was discussed until consensus was achieved. Of 146 SRs included in the assessment, only 45 (31%) reported the funding sources of primary studies. Fourteen (10%) SRs discussed the potential influence of funding sources on study results, that is, sponsorship bias. Funding sources are inadequately reported and discussed in SRs in periodontology and implant dentistry. Assessment, reporting, and critical appraisal of potential sponsorship bias of meta-analytic estimates are paramount to provide proper guidance for clinical treatments.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. CMAJ. 2004 Feb 17;170(4):477-80 - PubMed
    1. J Eval Clin Pract. 2001 May;7(2):135-48 - PubMed
    1. Public Health Nutr. 2009 Oct;12(10):1931-7 - PubMed
    1. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Dec 07;(12):CD008829 - PubMed
    1. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources