Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of article characteristics (study type & design, focal regions for data collection, study funding, and author COI)

From: Research on policy mechanisms to address funding bias and conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a scoping review

Types & Designs

COI Policy Surveys 34/81 (42.0%)

Meta-research (cross-sectional)

29/34 (85.3%)

Content analysis of policy documents

2/34 (6%)

Survey

1/34 (3%)

Interview

1/34 (3%)

Content analysis

1/34 (3%)

Assessments of Compliance with Funding/COI Disclosure Policies 19/81 (23.5%)

Meta-research (cross-sectional)

18/19 (94.7%)

Survey

1/19 (5.3%)

COI Disclosure Concordance Assessments 16/81 (19.8%)

Meta-research (cross-sectional)

12/16 (75%)

Meta-research (longitudinal)

5/16 (31.3%)

Policy Effects 16/81 (19.8%)

Opinion survey

4/16 (25%)

Controlled experiments (Including RCTs)

3/16 (18.75%)

Meta-research (cross-sectional)

3/16 (18.75%)

Case–control

2/16 (12.5%)

Case study

2/16 (12.5%)

Systematic reviews

1/16 (6.3%)

Legal analysis

1/16 (6.3%)

Policy Perception and Contexts 9/81 (11.1%)

Legal analysis

2/9 (22.2%)

Interview

3/9 (33.3%)

Opinion survey

2/9 (22.2%)

Ethnographic methods

2/9 (22.2%)

Cohort study

1/13 (7.7%)

Systematic review

1/13 (7.7%)

Content analysis

1/13 (7.7%)

Focal Regions for Data Collection

International

39/81 (48.1%)

USA

32/81 (39.5%)

China

2/81 (2.5%)

Denmark

2/81 (2.5%)

France

1/81 (1.2%)

Germany

1/81 (1.2%)

South Korea

1/81 (1.2%)

France

1/81 (1.2%)

Germany

1/81 (1.2%)

Japan

1/81 (1.2%)

UK

1/81 (1.2%)

Funding

None

26/81 (32.1%)

Government

20/81 (24.7%)

University

10/81 (12.3%)

Not-for-profit

6/81 (7.4%)

Drug and Device Industry

2 (2.5%)

Not disclosed

20/81 (24.7%)

Author COI

Yes

32/81 (39.5%)

No

39/81 (48.1%)

Not disclosed

9/81 (11.1%)