Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 20 August 2003
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in JAMA
- Vol. 290 (7) , 921-928
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.7.921
Abstract
Empirical evidence shows that conclusions in randomized trials are more positive toward experimental interventions if funded by for-profit organizations.1-7 Three studies found this association in randomized trials published in high-impact journals.1-3 Two studies reached similar results in randomized trials on arthritis4 and myeloma.5 Two recent systematic reviews6,7 highlight the external validity of these findings. It is not known whether this association reflects the quantitative trial results.8 More positive conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations could reflect either more beneficial treatment effects or less frequent occurrence of adverse events. None of the previous studies1-7 assessed these aspects. Furthermore, previous studies included relatively heterogeneous trial cohorts. This case mix could confound the findings. It is possible that the association simply reflects that trials funded by for-profit organizations assess the most effective interventions.Keywords
This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic reviewBMJ, 2003
- Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJBMJ, 2002
- Correlation of Quality Measures With Estimates of Treatment Effect in Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled TrialsJAMA, 2002
- Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-AnalysesAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2001
- The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trialsFamily Practice, 2001
- The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored researchThe Lancet, 2000
- Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical testBMJ, 1997
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA, 1995
- Source of funding and outcome of clinical trialsJournal of General Internal Medicine, 1986
- Statistics and Ethics in Surgery and AnesthesiaScience, 1977