Faculty Opinions recommendation of Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000-2005.

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
I found this paper interesting precisely because its results are similar to those of previous research {1-3} - despite all the efforts to improve the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in recent years, and our improved empirical knowledge about design factors associated with quality of our trials, there are still significant differences in outcomes depending on type of funding and bias associated with surrogate outcomes. This review of recent clinical trials in high impact journals shows that those funded by for-profit organisations are more likely to report positive findings than those funded by not-for-profit organisations. The authors reviewed cardiovascular trials in three widely available journals (JAMA, LANCET, NEJM) from 2000-2005. 49% of those solely funded by not-for-profit organisations favoured newer treatments compared with 67.2% of those funded by for-profit organisations. Importantly, trials using surrogate rather than clinical endpoints were more likely to report positive findings regardless of funding source. The authors discuss some possible explanations for this discrepancy (including publication bias, data suppression, data quality and whether the hypothesis is 'novel' or a replication of previous trials e.g. in a different population), but are not able to assess the importance of each.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: