当前位置:科学网首页 > 小柯机器人 >详情
室内日光浴行业资金支持的文献更倾向于支持室内日光浴
作者:小柯机器人 发布时间:2020/2/11 10:06:34

美国范德比尔特大学医学中心Eleni Linos课题组近日取得一项新成果。经过不懈努力,他们的最新研究分析了室内日光浴行业的经济关联与已发表的室内日光浴研究结论之间的关系。相关论文于2020年2月5日发表于国际顶尖学术期刊《英国医学杂志》上。

为了评估室内日光浴行业的经济关联与室内日光浴文献的结论是否相关,研究组进行了一项系统性回顾分析。

研究组从PubMed、Embase和科学引文索引网站中进行筛选,检索截至2019年2月15日的室内日光浴与健康的文章。

最终共有691篇文章被纳入分析,其中经验性文章357篇,非经验性文章334篇。总的来说,7.2%的文章与室内日光浴行业有经济关联;10.7%的文章支持室内日光浴,3.9%的文章保持中立,85.4%的文章不支持。

在没有行业资金支持的文章中,4.4%的文章支持室内日光浴,3.5%的文章保持中立,92.1%的文章不支持。而在与室内日光浴行业有经济关联的文章中,78%的文章支持室内日光浴,10%的文章保持中立,12%的文章不支持。来自室内日光浴行业支持的文献更倾向于支持室内日光浴,风险比为14.3。

总之,尽管室内日光浴文献中的大多数文章都没有行业资助,但与室内日光浴行业有经济关联的文章更倾向于支持室内日光浴。公共卫生从业人员和研究人员在解读与室内日光浴有关的证据时,需了解并说明其是否受到行业资助。

附:英文原文

Title: Association between financial links to indoor tanning industry and conclusions of published studies on indoor tanning: systematic review

Author: Lola Adekunle, Rebecca Chen, Lily Morrison, Meghan Halley, Victor Eng, Yogi Hendlin, Mackenzie R Wehner, Mary-Margaret Chren, Eleni Linos

Issue&Volume: 2020/02/05

Abstract:

Objective To assess whether an association exists between financial links to the indoor tanning industry and conclusions of indoor tanning literature.
 
Design Systematic review.
 
Data sources PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, up to 15 February 2019.
 
Study selection criteria Articles discussing indoor tanning and health were eligible for inclusion, with no article type restrictions (original research, systematic reviews, review articles, case reports, editorials, commentaries, and letters were all eligible). Basic science studies, articles describing only indoor tanning prevalence, non-English articles, and articles without full text available were excluded.
 
Results 691 articles were included in analysis, including empiric articles (eg, original articles or systematic reviews) (357/691; 51.7%) and non-empiric articles letters (eg, commentaries, letters, or editorials) (334/691; 48.3%). Overall, 7.2% (50/691) of articles had financial links to the indoor tanning industry; 10.7% (74/691) articles favored indoor tanning, 3.9% (27/691) were neutral, and 85.4% (590/691) were critical of indoor tanning. Among the articles without industry funding, 4.4% (27/620) favored indoor tanning, 3.5% (22/620) were neutral, and 92.1% (571/620) were critical of indoor tanning. Among the articles with financial links to the indoor tanning industry, 78% (39/50) favored indoor tanning, 10% (5/50) were neutral, and 12% (6/50) were critical of indoor tanning. Support from the indoor tanning industry was significantly associated with favoring indoor tanning (risk ratio 14.3, 95% confidence interval 10.0 to 20.4).
 
Conclusions Although most articles in the indoor tanning literature are independent of industry funding, articles with financial links to the indoor tanning industry are more likely to favor indoor tanning. Public health practitioners and researchers need to be aware of and account for industry funding when interpreting the evidence related to indoor tanning.

DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m7

Source: https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m7

期刊信息

BMJ-British Medical Journal:《英国医学杂志》,创刊于1840年。隶属于BMJ出版集团,最新IF:27.604
官方网址:http://www.bmj.com/
投稿链接:https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj