Evaluation of Industry Relationships Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Regarding Ménières Disease

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2022 Sep;131(9):1004-1012. doi: 10.1177/00034894211051822. Epub 2021 Oct 12.


Objectives: To quantify the presence of conflicts of interest (COI) in SRs and MAs of Ménières disease treatment and identify any related secondary characteristics of these articles.

Methods: A search was conducted on May 28, 2020 to search MEDLINE and Embase databases for SRs or MAs pertaining to Ménières disease published between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2020. A risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment criteria.

Results: A total of 13 systematic reviews conducted by 49 authors met the inclusion criteria. Of the 49 authors, 7 (14.3%) were found to have some form of COI. Of these 7 authors, 1 (14.3%) completely disclosed all COI within the SR, 1 (14.3%) disclosed one or more COI but were found to have an additional undisclosed COI, and 5 (71.4%) were found to have only undisclosed COI. One of 2 industry funded SRs (50%) had a high risk of bias, and 1 (50%) of the non-industry sponsored SRs were found to have a high risk of bias.

Conclusions: Overall authors of SRs pertaining to Ménières disease appear to be properly disclosing COI at higher rates than other fields of medicine; however, further room for improvement has been noted.

Keywords: Meniere’s disease; conflicts of interest; industry bias; meta analysis; otolaryngology; otology; systematic reviews.

MeSH terms

  • Bias
  • Humans
  • Meniere Disease*
  • Systematic Reviews as Topic