Association Between Funding Source and Study Outcome in Orthopaedic Research

Top Cited Papers
Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The current report tests the hypotheses that commercial funding, country of origin, and presence of a coinvestigator with training in statistics are related to the likelihood of a published orthopaedic study arriving at a positive conclusion. All articles from the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American), the Journal of Arthroplasty, and the American Journal of Sports Medicine published in 1 year were reviewed. The blinded review process classified each article as to study design and outcome (positive or negative), according to previously published definitions. Commercial funding was significantly associated with a positive outcome; 78.9% of commercially funded studies concluded with a positive outcome, compared with 63.3% of nonfunded studies. The presence of a statistician or epidemiologist as a coinvestigator, and the place of origin of the study were not associated with outcome. Only 21% of published studies were prospective, 3.5% were randomized, and 10.5% stated an experimental hypothesis; these factors were not associated with study outcome. Published studies that received funding from commercial parties were significantly more likely to report a positive outcome than studies that received no such funding. This does not imply the presence of a corrupting or causative influence of industry sponsorship on research outcomes; additional research is needed to determine whether such nonscientific factors actually affect study outcome or likelihood of publication.