pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials - PubMed

  • ️Thu Jan 01 2004

. 2004 Feb 17;170(4):477-80.

Affiliations

Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials

Mohit Bhandari et al. CMAJ. 2004.

Abstract

Background: Conflicting reports exist in the medical literature regarding the association between industry funding and published research findings. In this study, we examine the association between industry funding and the statistical significance of results in recently published medical and surgical trials.

Methods: We examined a consecutive series of 332 randomized trials published between January 1999 and June 2001 in 8 leading surgical journals and 5 medical journals. Each eligible study was independently reviewed for methodological quality using a 21-point index with 5 domains: randomization, outcomes, eligibility criteria, interventions and statistical issues. Our primary analysis included studies that explicitly identified the primary outcome and reported it as statistically significant. For studies that did not explicitly identify a primary outcome, we defined a "positive" study as one with at least 1 statistically significant outcome measure. We used multivariable regression analysis to determine whether there was an association between reported industry funding and trial results, while controlling for study quality and sample size.

Results: Among the 332 randomized trials, there were 158 drug trials, 87 surgical trials and 87 trials of other therapies. In 122 (37%) of the trials, authors declared industry funding. An unadjusted analysis of this sample of trials revealed that industry funding was associated with a statistically significant result in favour of the new industry product (odds ratio [OR] 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-3.5). The association remained significant after adjustment for study quality and sample size (adjusted OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-3.0). There was a nonsignificant difference between surgical trials (OR 8.0, 95% CI 1.1-53.2) and drug trials (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.8), both of which were likely to have a pro-industry result (relative OR 5.0, 95% CI 0.7-37.5, p = 0.14).

Interpretation: Industry-funded trials are more likely to be associated with statistically significant pro-industry findings, both in medical trials and surgical interventions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

None

Fig. 1: Comparison of current results with a meta-analysis of 1140 medical trials and a recent study of 100 trials. Point estimates from our current sample of 158 drug trials and 87 nonsurgical, nondrug trials support previous estimates from the meta-analysis. Point estimates of the odds of pro-industry conclusions from 87 surgical trials are greater than those of drug trials and nonsurgical, nondrug trials. OR = odds ratio, CI = confidence interval, Q = quotient, df = degrees of freedom.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kjaergard LL, Als-Nielsen B. Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ 2002;325(7358):249-53. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, Fields KK, Bennett CL, Adams JR, et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 2000; 356(9230):635-8. - PubMed
    1. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326(7400):1167-70. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Clifford T, Barrowman N, Moher D. Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: Are they related? Results of a pilot study. BMC Health Serv Res 2002;2(1):18-24. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Davidson RA. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med 1986;1(3):155-8. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms