OBJECTIVE To investigate pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups. DESIGN Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to January 2018; reference lists of eligible studies and experts in the field. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES Observational studies including cross sectional, cohort, case-control, interrupted time series, and before-after studies of patient groups reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups that disclosed information about this funding; and association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. Studies were included irrespective of language or publication type. REVIEW METHODS Reviewers carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessment of study quality. An amended version of the checklist for prevalence studies developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute was used to assess study quality. A DerSimonian-Laird estimate of single proportions with Freeman-Tukey arcsine transformation was used for meta-analyses of prevalence. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. RESULTS 26 cross sectional studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 studies estimated the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). Among patient organisations that received industry funding, 27% (175/642; 95% confidence interval 24% to 31%) disclosed this information on their websites. In submissions to consultations, two studies showed very different disclosure rates (0% and 91%), which appeared to reflect differences in the relevant government agency's disclosure requirements. Prevalence estimates of organisational policies that govern corporate sponsorship ranged from 2% (2/125) to 64% (175/274). Four studies analysed the relationship between industry funding and organisational positions on a range of highly controversial issues. Industry funded groups generally supported sponsors' interests. CONCLUSION In general, industry funding of patient groups seems to be common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 20% to 83%. Few patient groups have policies that govern corporate sponsorship. Transparency about corporate funding is also inadequate. Among the few studies that examined associations between industry funding and organisational positions, industry funded groups tended to have positions favourable to the sponsor. Patient groups have an important role in advocacy, education, and research, therefore strategies are needed to prevent biases that could favour the interests of sponsors above those of the public. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42017079265.

中文翻译：

---

病人和健康消费者组织的行业资助：通过荟萃分析进行系统审查。

目的调查制药或医疗器械行业对患者群体的资助。设计带有荟萃分析的系统评价。数据来源：Ovid Medline，Embase，Web of Science，Scopus和Google Scholar从成立到2018年1月; 该领域合格研究和专家的参考清单。选择研究的资格标准观察性研究包括横断面研究，队列研究，病例对照研究，间断时间序列研究以及对至少报告以下一项结果的患者群体进行的前后研究：行业资助的普遍性；由行业资助的患者群体中披露有关该资助信息的比例；行业资金与健康和政策问题上的组织职位之间的关联。不论语言或出版物类型，均纳入研究。评审方法评审员进行重复的独立数据提取并评估研究质量。乔安娜·布里格斯研究所（Joanna Briggs Institute）制定了流行病学检查清单的修订版，以评估研究质量。用Freeman-Tukey反正弦变换对单个比例进行DerSimonian-Laird估计用于患病率的荟萃分析。GRADE（建议评估，制定和评估的等级）用于评估每个结果的证据质量。结果26项横断面研究符合纳入标准。在这些研究中，有15项研究估计了行业融资的普遍性，范围从20％（12/61）到83％（86/104）。在获得行业资助的患者组织中，有27％（175/642; 95％置信区间24％至31％）在其网站上披露了此信息。在向咨询机构提交的意见书中，两项研究显示披露率差异很大（分别为0％和91％），这似乎反映出相关政府机构的披露要求存在差异。管理公司赞助的组织政策的普遍性估计值范围从2％（2/125）到64％（175/274）。四项研究分析了在一系列极具争议的问题上行业资金与组织职位之间的关系。行业资助团体通常支持赞助商的利益。结论一般而言，患者群体的行业资助似乎很普遍，患病率的估计范围为20％至83％。很少有患者团体制定管理公司赞助的政策。公司资金的透明度也不足。在为数不多的研究行业资助与组织职位之间的关联的研究中，行业资助的团体倾向于拥有有利于赞助者的职位。患者群体在倡导，教育和研究中起着重要作用，因此需要采取策略来防止偏见，这些偏见可能会比赞助者的利益更有利于赞助者的利益。系统审查注册PROSPERO CRD42017079265。