000			03948nam a22004217a 4500
008			240723s20242024 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a1058-2746
024			_aS1058-2746(24)00264-7 [pii]
040			_aOvid MEDLINE(R)
099			_a38642875
245			_aFunding Bias in Shoulder Arthroplasty Research. [Review]
251			_aJournal of Shoulder & Elbow Surgery. 2024 Apr 18
252			_aJ Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2024 Apr 18
253			_aJournal of shoulder and elbow surgery
260			_c2024
260			_p2024 Apr 18
265			_saheadofprint
265			_tPublisher
266			_d2024-07-23
501			_aAvailable online from MWHC library: 1995 - present, Available in print through MWHC library:2004 - 2007
520			_aBACKGROUND: Prior research has shown that industry funding can impact the outcomes reported in medical literature. Limited data exists on the degree of bias that industry funding may have on shoulder arthroplasty literature outside of the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. The purpose of this study is to characterize the type and frequency of funding for recently published shoulder arthroplasty studies and the impact of industry funding on reported outcomes. We hypothesized that studies with industry funding are more likely to report positive outcomes than those without.
520			_aCONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that there is a significant relationship between conflicts of interest and the primary outcome of shoulder arthroplasty studies, beyond the overall positive publication bias. Studies with industry funding and author conflicts of interest both report positive outcomes more frequently than negative outcomes. Shoulder surgeons should be aware of this potential bias when choosing to base clinical practice on published data. Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.
520			_aMATERIALS/METHOD: We performed a retrospective study searching all articles with the term "shoulder arthroplasty," "reverse shoulder arthroplasty," "anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty," or "total shoulder arthroplasty" on PubMed from the years January 2020 to December 2022. The primary outcome of studies was coded as either positive, negative, or neutral. A positive result was defined as one in which the null hypothesis was rejected. A negative result was defined as one in which the result did not favor the group in which the industry-funded implant was used. A neutral result was defined as one in which the null hypothesis was confirmed. Article funding type, subcategorized as National Institute of Health (NIH) funding or industry funding was recorded. Author disclosures were recorded to determine conflicts of interest. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Chi-squared test and Fisher exact test.
520			_aRESULTS: 750 articles reported on either conflict of interest or funding source and were included in the study. Of the total number of industry funded studies the majority were found to have a positive primary endpoint (58.1%, 104/179), as compared to a negative (7.8%, 14/179), or neutral endpoint (33.5%, 60/179) (p=0.004). 363 articles reported an author conflicts of interest and the majority of these studies had positive primary endpoint (55.6%, 202/363) as compared to negative (9.1%, 33/363) or neutral endpoints (34.4%, 125/363)(p=.002).
546			_aEnglish
650			_zAutomated
650			_aIN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXED
651			_aMedStar Union Memorial Hospital
656			_aOrthopaedic Surgery Residency
656			_aOrthopedics
657			_aJournal Article
657			_aReview
700			_aHaislup, Brett _bMUMH _cOrthopaedic Surgery Residency _dMD
700			_aMurthi, Anand M _bMUMH
790			_aHaislup BD, Gupta S, Fleisher I, Murthi AM, Wright MA
856			_uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2024.03.016 _zhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2024.03.016
942			_cART _dArticle
999			_c14166 _d14166