OBJECTIVE To assess whether an association exists between financial links to the indoor tanning industry and conclusions of indoor tanning literature. DESIGN Systematic review. DATA SOURCES PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, up to 15 February 2019. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA Articles discussing indoor tanning and health were eligible for inclusion, with no article type restrictions (original research, systematic reviews, review articles, case reports, editorials, commentaries, and letters were all eligible). Basic science studies, articles describing only indoor tanning prevalence, non-English articles, and articles without full text available were excluded. RESULTS 691 articles were included in analysis, including empiric articles (eg, original articles or systematic reviews) (357/691; 51.7%) and non-empiric articles letters (eg, commentaries, letters, or editorials) (334/691; 48.3%). Overall, 7.2% (50/691) of articles had financial links to the indoor tanning industry; 10.7% (74/691) articles favored indoor tanning, 3.9% (27/691) were neutral, and 85.4% (590/691) were critical of indoor tanning. Among the articles without industry funding, 4.4% (27/620) favored indoor tanning, 3.5% (22/620) were neutral, and 92.1% (571/620) were critical of indoor tanning. Among the articles with financial links to the indoor tanning industry, 78% (39/50) favored indoor tanning, 10% (5/50) were neutral, and 12% (6/50) were critical of indoor tanning. Support from the indoor tanning industry was significantly associated with favoring indoor tanning (risk ratio 14.3, 95% confidence interval 10.0 to 20.4). CONCLUSIONS Although most articles in the indoor tanning literature are independent of industry funding, articles with financial links to the indoor tanning industry are more likely to favor indoor tanning. Public health practitioners and researchers need to be aware of and account for industry funding when interpreting the evidence related to indoor tanning. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42019123617.

中文翻译：

---

室内制革业的财务联系与室内制革业已发表研究结论之间的关联：系统综述。

目的评估室内制革业的财务联系与室内制革文献的结论之间是否存在关联。设计系统评价。数据来源PubMed，Embase和Web of Science，截至2019年2月15日。研究选择标准讨论室内日光浴和健康状况的文章均可纳入，且无文章类型限制（原始研究，系统综述，评论文章，病例报告，社论） ，评论和信件均符合条件）。基础科学研究，仅描述室内日晒流行程度的文章，非英语文章以及无全文的文章均被排除在外。结果691篇文章被纳入分析，包括经验性文章（例如原始文章或系统评价）（357/691； 51.7％）和非经验性文章信函（例如评论，信件或社论）（334/691； 48.3％）。总体而言，有7.2％（50/691）的商品与室内制革业有财务联系；10.7％（74/691）的文章赞成室内鞣制，3.9％（27/691）是中性的，85.4％（590/691）批评室内鞣制。在没有行业资助的文章中，有4.4％（27/620）喜欢室内晒黑，3.5％（22/620）是中性的，92.1％（571/620）批评室内晒黑。在与室内晒黑行业有财务联系的文章中，有78％（39/50）的人喜欢室内晒黑，有10％（5/50）是中性的，有12％（6/50）批评室内晒黑。室内鞣革行业的支持与室内鞣革的有利发展密切相关（风险比14.3，95％置信区间10.0至20.4）。结论尽管室内日光浴文献中的大多数文章都独立于行业资助，但与室内日光浴产业有财务联系的文章更倾向于室内日光浴。在解释与室内晒黑有关的证据时，公共卫生从业人员和研究人员需要意识到并考虑行业资金。系统审查注册PROSPERO CRD42019123617。