RESEARCH PAPER
Conflicts of interest in research on electronic cigarettes
Cristina Martínez 1, 2, 3  
,  
Marcela Fu 1, 2, 4
,  
Iñaki Galán 5, 6
,  
Mónica Pérez-Rios 7, 8, 9
,  
Maria J. López 9, 11, 12
,  
Xisca Sureda 13
,  
Agustín Montes 8, 9
,  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Control and Prevention Programme, Institut Català d’Oncologia-ICO, Barcelona, Spain
2
Cancer Control and Prevention Group, Institut d’Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge-IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain
3
Department of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
4
Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
5
National Centre for Epidemiology, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
6
Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid/IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain
7
Epidemiology Unit, Galician Directorate for Public Health, Galician Health Authority, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
8
Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
9
Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
10
Group of Evaluation of Health Determinants and Health Policies, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
11
Evaluation and Intervention Methods Service, Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
12
Sant Pau Institute of Biomedical Research (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain
13
Social and Cardiovascular Epidemiology Research Group, School of Medicine, Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, Spain
Publish date: 2018-06-01
 
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2018;16(June):28
KEYWORDS:
TOPICS:
ABSTRACT:
Introduction:
The tobacco control community has raised some concerns about whether studies on electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) published in scientific journals hide conflicts of interest (COI) and whether such reports are biased. This study assessed potential COI in the e-cigarette scientific literature.

Methods:
Cross-sectional study was conducted on e-cigarette publications indexed in PubMed up to August 2014. We extracted information about the authors (affiliations, location, etc.), publication characteristics (type, topic, subject, etc.), results and conclusions, presence of a COI statement, and funding by and/or financial ties to pharmaceutical, tobacco, and/or e-cigarette companies. An algorithm to determine the COI disclosure status was created based on the information in the publication. Prevalence ratios (PRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to identify associations with COI disclosure, controlling for several independent variables.

Results:
Of the 404 publications included in the analysis, 37.1% (n=150) had no COI disclosure statement, 38.6% declared no COI, 13.4% declared potential COI with pharmaceutical companies, 3.0% with tobacco companies, and 10.6% with e-cigarette companies. The conclusions in publications with COI, which were mainly tied to pharmaceutical companies, were more likely to be favourable to e-cigarette use (PR=2.23; 95% CI: 1.43–3.46). Publications that supported the use of e-cigarettes for both harm reduction (PR=1.81; 95%CI: 1.14– 2.89) and smoking cessation (PR=2.02; 95% CI: 1.26–3.23) were more likely to have conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarettes.

Conclusions:
One-third of the publications reporting studies on e-cigarettes did not have a COI disclosure statement, and this proportion was even higher in news articles, editorials and other types of publications. Papers with conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarette use were more likely to have COI. Journal editors and reviewers should consider evaluating publications, including funding sources, to determine whether the results and conclusions may be biased.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Cristina Martínez   
Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Control and Prevention Programme, Institut Català d’Oncologia-ICO, L’Hospitalet, Av Granvia 199-203, 08908 L’Hospitalet del Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
 
REFERENCES (26):
1. Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:573-576. doi:10.1056/nejm199308193290812
2. Roseman M, Milette K, Bero LA, et al. Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments. JAMA. 2011;305:1008-1017. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.257
3. Dunn AG, Coiera E, Mandl KD, Bourgeois FT. Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: A review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016;1:1. doi:10.1186/s41073-016-0006-7
4. Relman AS. Dealing with conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:1182-1183. doi:10.1056/nejm198405033101809
5. Parascandola M. A turning point for conflicts of interest: the controversy over the National Academy of Sciences' first conflicts of interest disclosure policy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3774-3779. doi:10.1200/jco.2006.09.2890
6. Drazen JM, Van Der Weyden MB, Sahni P, et al. Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:125-126. doi:10.7326/0000605-200901190-00160
7. Ruff K. Scientific journals and conflict of interest disclosure: what progress has been made? Environ Health. 2015;14:45. doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0035-6
8. Hong MK, Bero LA. Tobacco industry sponsorship of a book and conflict of interest. Addiction. 2006;101:1202-1211. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01382.x
9. Wang AT, McCoy CP, Murad MH, Montori VM. Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review. BMJ. 2010;340:c1344. doi:10.1136/bmj.c1344
10. Malone RE, Bero LA. Chasing the dollar: why scientists should decline tobacco industry funding. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57:546-548. doi:10.1136/jech.57.8.546
11. Barnes DE, Bero LA. Scientific quality of original research articles on environmental tobacco smoke. Tob Control. 1997;6:19-26. doi:10.1136/tc.6.1.19
12. Gornall J. Public Health England's troubled trail. BMJ. 2015;351:h5826. doi:10.1136/bmj.h5826
13. Pisinger C. Reading the conflict of interest statement is as important as reading the result section: Response to the letter by Dr. Kosmider: ideology versus evidence: investigating the claim that the literature on e-cigarettes is undermined by material conflict of interest. Prev Med. 2016;85:115. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.01.025
14. Kosmider L, Anastasi N. Ideology versus evidence: Investigating the claim that the literature on e-cigarettes is undermined by material conflict of interest. Prev Med. 2016;85:113-114. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.12.023
15. E-cigarettes: Public Health England's evidence-based confusion. Lancet. 2015;386:829. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00042-2
16. McNeill A, Brose LS, Calder R, Hitchman SC. E-cigarettes: an evidence update. A report commissioned by Public Health England. London: Public Health England 2015.
17. Pisinger C, Dossing M. A systematic review of health effects of electronic cigarettes. Prev Med. 2014;69:248-260. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.10.009
18. Fernandez E, Ballbe M, Sureda X, Fu M, Saltó E, Martínez-Sánchez JM. Particulate Matter from Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes: a Systematic Review and Observational Study. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2015;2:423-429. doi:10.1007/s40572-015-0072-x
19. McKee M, Capewell S. Evidence about electronic cigarettes: a foundation built on rock or sand? BMJ. 2015;351:h4863. doi:10.1136/bmj.h4863
20. Shaw DM, Etter JF, Elger BS. Should academic journals publish e-cigarette research linked to tobacco companies? Addiction. 2016;111:1328-1332. doi:10.1111/add.13067
21. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM. Worldwide research productivity in the field of electronic cigarette: a bibliometric analysis. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:667. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-667
22. Bero L, Oostvogel F, Bacchetti P, Lee K. Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e184. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040184
23. Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2:MR000033. doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000033.pub3
24. Smith R. Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e138. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138
25. Marcovitch H, Barbour V, Borrell C, et al. Conflict of interest in science communication: more than a financial issue. Report from Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, April 2009. Croat Med J. 2010;51(1):7-15. doi:10.3325/cmj.2010.51.7
26. Glantz SA. Surprise! Lorillard Tobacco publishes two papers finding e-cigs pose no hazard. Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco website. https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/surpr.... Published, 2014. Accessed March 19, 2018.
 
CITATIONS (1):
1. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A. González-Marrón, J.M. Martínez-Sánchez, J.C. Martín-Sánchez, N. Matilla Santander, À. Cartanyà-Hueso
Medicina de Familia. SEMERGEN
eISSN:1617-9625