Abstract
Industry-supported clinical trials may present better outcomes than those supported by other sources. The aim of this paper was to assess whether systematic reviews (SRs) published in periodontology and implant dentistry report and discuss the influence of funding sources on study results. Two reviewers conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews independently and in duplicate to identify SRs published up to 11 November 2012. Speciality dental journals and the reference lists of included SRs were also scrutinised. Information on the reporting and discussion of funding sources of primary studies included in the SRs was extracted independently and in duplicate. Any disagreement regarding SR selection or data extraction was discussed until consensus was achieved. Of 146 SRs included in the assessment, only 45 (31% reported the funding sources of primary studies. Fourteen (10%) SRs discussed the potential influence of funding sources on study results, that is, sponsorship bias. Funding sources are inadequately reported and discussed in SRs in periodontology and implant dentistry. Assessment, reporting, and critical appraisal of potential sponsorship bias of meta-analytic estimates are paramount to provide proper guidance for clinical treatments.