TY - JOUR T1 - Relationship between the conflicts of interest and the results of meta-analyses of homoeopathy trials JF - BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine JO - BMJ EBM DO - 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112228 SP - bmjebm-2022-112228 AU - Quentin Perrier AU - Agathe Coste AU - Aminata Diallo AU - Alicia Guigui AU - Charles Khouri AU - Matthieu Roustit Y1 - 2023/05/17 UR - http://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2023/05/16/bmjebm-2022-112228.abstract N2 - In the absence of robust trials supporting the efficacy of homoeopathy, people who criticise or, on the contrary, defend homoeopathy, refer to meta-analyses whose results support their point of view. We hypothesised that the discrepant results of meta-analyses of homoeopathic medicines were related to potential conflicts of interest (COIs). Indeed, there is evidence suggesting that COI influences research outcomes.1 While such association has recently been studied for various drugs and nutrition studies,2 3 it remains unexplored for homoeopathy trials.The objective of this study was, therefore, to assess whether COI was associated with the results of meta-analyses of homoeopathy trials.We conducted a literature search until July 2022 on PubMed and Embase to identify meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of homoeopathy. There was no restriction on the investigational product or its comparator. The study population thus included patients with various medical conditions, including both children and adults. We assessed the existence of potential COI, defined by at least one of the following criteria: affiliation of one or more author to an academic homoeopathy research or care facility, or to a homoeopathy industry; study sponsored or funded by homoeopathy industry; COI declared by the authors. We also assessed and classified spin in meta-analyses conclusions into three categories (misleading reporting, misleading interpretation and inappropriate extrapolation) as previously described.4 Two reviewers assessed the quality of meta-analyses … ER -