Purpose: To examine the relationship between industry funding and outcome reporting bias in high-quality studies investigating the use of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for patients with macular oedema secondary to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (RVO). Methods: This systematic review in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE examined all randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses published in journals with impact factor of ≥2 that investigated effectiveness of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy in patients with RVO. The main outcome measure was correspondence between statistical outcome and abstract conclusion wording. Results: Forty-five studies met inclusion criteria; 38 (84%) showed correspondence between outcome and abstract conclusion without difference between industry-funded and nonindustry-funded publications (p = 0.39) or between publications in journals with impact factor ≥3 versus <3 (p = 0.96). Conclusion: In high-quality studies of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy for RVO, neither industry funding nor journal impact factor affected the rate of outcome reporting bias.
- anti-VEGF agents
- branch retinal vein occlusion
- central retinal vein occlusion
- macular oedema
- reporting bias
ASJC Scopus subject areas