Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Lundh, A., Sismondo, S., Lexchin, J., Busuioc, O., & Bero, L. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012. 1![Industry sponsorship and research outcome [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Results from clinical studies on drugs and medical devices affect how doctors practice medicine and thereby the treatments offered to patients. However, clinical research is increasingly sponsored by companies that make these products, either because the companies directly perform the studies, or fully or partially fund them. Previous research has found that pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies tend to favor the sponsors’ drugs more than studies with any other sources of sponsorship. This suggests that industry sponsored studies are biased in favor of the sponsor’s products. This review is an update of a previous review that looked at sponsorship of drug and device studies. The primary aim of the review was to find out whether the published results and overall conclusions of industry sponsored drug and device studies were more likely to favor the sponsors’ products, compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. The secondary aim was to find out whether such industry sponsored studies used methods that increase the risk of bias, again compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. In this update, we carried out a comprehensive search of all relevant papers of empirical studies published from 2010 to February 2015 and included 27 new papers, yielding a total of 75 papers included in our review. Industry sponsored drug and device studies more often had efficacy results that were favorable to the sponsors' products, (risk ratio (RR): 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17 to 1.37), similar harms results (RR: 1.37, 95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) and favorable overall conclusions (RR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51), compared with non-industry sponsored drug and device studies. We did not find a difference between industry and non-industry sponsored studies with respect to standard methodological factors that may increase the risk of bias, except for blinding: industry sponsored studies reported satisfactory blinding more often than non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98).We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions. Our analysis suggests that industry sponsored drug and device studies are more often favorable to the sponsor’s products than non-industry sponsored drug and device studies due to biases that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessment tools.
@article{lundh_industry_2012,
title = {Industry sponsorship and research outcome},
url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.inshs.bib.cnrs.fr/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2/abstract},
doi = {10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2},
abstract = {Results from clinical studies on drugs and medical devices affect how doctors practice medicine and thereby the treatments offered to patients. However, clinical research is increasingly sponsored by companies that make these products, either because the companies directly perform the studies, or fully or partially fund them. Previous research has found that pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies tend to favor the sponsors’ drugs more than studies with any other sources of sponsorship. This suggests that industry sponsored studies are biased in favor of the sponsor’s products.
This review is an update of a previous review that looked at sponsorship of drug and device studies. The primary aim of the review was to find out whether the published results and overall conclusions of industry sponsored drug and device studies were more likely to favor the sponsors’ products, compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. The secondary aim was to find out whether such industry sponsored studies used methods that increase the risk of bias, again compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. In this update, we carried out a comprehensive search of all relevant papers of empirical studies published from 2010 to February 2015 and included 27 new papers, yielding a total of 75 papers included in our review.
Industry sponsored drug and device studies more often had efficacy results that were favorable to the sponsors' products, (risk ratio (RR): 1.27, 95\% confidence interval (CI): 1.17 to 1.37), similar harms results (RR: 1.37, 95\% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) and favorable overall conclusions (RR: 1.34, 95\% CI: 1.19 to 1.51), compared with non-industry sponsored drug and device studies. We did not find a difference between industry and non-industry sponsored studies with respect to standard methodological factors that may increase the risk of bias, except for blinding: industry sponsored studies reported satisfactory blinding more often than non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95\% CI: 0.70 to 0.98).We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions. Our analysis suggests that industry sponsored drug and device studies are more often favorable to the sponsor’s products than non-industry sponsored drug and device studies due to biases that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessment tools.},
language = {en},
urldate = {2018-01-31},
journal = {Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews},
author = {Lundh, Andreas and Sismondo, Sergio and Lexchin, Joel and Busuioc, Octavian and Bero, Lisa},
year = {2012},
note = {1},
keywords = {5 Ignorance and manufactured doubt, 8 Ignorance and funding bias, Biais de financement, Ignorance et mécanismes de production du doute, PRINTED (Fonds papier)},
pages = {91 p.},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"mMsfkWXyYZYeggs7K","bibbaseid":"lundh-sismondo-lexchin-busuioc-bero-industrysponsorshipandresearchoutcome-2012","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2018-09-05T12:55:56.316Z","title":"Industry sponsorship and research outcome","author_short":["Lundh, A.","Sismondo, S.","Lexchin, J.","Busuioc, O.","Bero, L."],"year":2012,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://bibbase.org/zotero-group/science_et_ignorance/1340424","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Industry sponsorship and research outcome","url":"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.inshs.bib.cnrs.fr/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2/abstract","doi":"10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2","abstract":"Results from clinical studies on drugs and medical devices affect how doctors practice medicine and thereby the treatments offered to patients. However, clinical research is increasingly sponsored by companies that make these products, either because the companies directly perform the studies, or fully or partially fund them. Previous research has found that pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies tend to favor the sponsors’ drugs more than studies with any other sources of sponsorship. This suggests that industry sponsored studies are biased in favor of the sponsor’s products. This review is an update of a previous review that looked at sponsorship of drug and device studies. The primary aim of the review was to find out whether the published results and overall conclusions of industry sponsored drug and device studies were more likely to favor the sponsors’ products, compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. The secondary aim was to find out whether such industry sponsored studies used methods that increase the risk of bias, again compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. In this update, we carried out a comprehensive search of all relevant papers of empirical studies published from 2010 to February 2015 and included 27 new papers, yielding a total of 75 papers included in our review. Industry sponsored drug and device studies more often had efficacy results that were favorable to the sponsors' products, (risk ratio (RR): 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17 to 1.37), similar harms results (RR: 1.37, 95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) and favorable overall conclusions (RR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51), compared with non-industry sponsored drug and device studies. We did not find a difference between industry and non-industry sponsored studies with respect to standard methodological factors that may increase the risk of bias, except for blinding: industry sponsored studies reported satisfactory blinding more often than non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98).We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions. Our analysis suggests that industry sponsored drug and device studies are more often favorable to the sponsor’s products than non-industry sponsored drug and device studies due to biases that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessment tools.","language":"en","urldate":"2018-01-31","journal":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Lundh"],"firstnames":["Andreas"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Sismondo"],"firstnames":["Sergio"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Lexchin"],"firstnames":["Joel"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Busuioc"],"firstnames":["Octavian"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Bero"],"firstnames":["Lisa"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2012","note":"1","keywords":"5 Ignorance and manufactured doubt, 8 Ignorance and funding bias, Biais de financement, Ignorance et mécanismes de production du doute, PRINTED (Fonds papier)","pages":"91 p.","bibtex":"@article{lundh_industry_2012,\n\ttitle = {Industry sponsorship and research outcome},\n\turl = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.inshs.bib.cnrs.fr/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2/abstract},\n\tdoi = {10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2},\n\tabstract = {Results from clinical studies on drugs and medical devices affect how doctors practice medicine and thereby the treatments offered to patients. However, clinical research is increasingly sponsored by companies that make these products, either because the companies directly perform the studies, or fully or partially fund them. Previous research has found that pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies tend to favor the sponsors’ drugs more than studies with any other sources of sponsorship. This suggests that industry sponsored studies are biased in favor of the sponsor’s products.\n\nThis review is an update of a previous review that looked at sponsorship of drug and device studies. The primary aim of the review was to find out whether the published results and overall conclusions of industry sponsored drug and device studies were more likely to favor the sponsors’ products, compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. The secondary aim was to find out whether such industry sponsored studies used methods that increase the risk of bias, again compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. In this update, we carried out a comprehensive search of all relevant papers of empirical studies published from 2010 to February 2015 and included 27 new papers, yielding a total of 75 papers included in our review.\n\nIndustry sponsored drug and device studies more often had efficacy results that were favorable to the sponsors' products, (risk ratio (RR): 1.27, 95\\% confidence interval (CI): 1.17 to 1.37), similar harms results (RR: 1.37, 95\\% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) and favorable overall conclusions (RR: 1.34, 95\\% CI: 1.19 to 1.51), compared with non-industry sponsored drug and device studies. We did not find a difference between industry and non-industry sponsored studies with respect to standard methodological factors that may increase the risk of bias, except for blinding: industry sponsored studies reported satisfactory blinding more often than non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95\\% CI: 0.70 to 0.98).We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions. Our analysis suggests that industry sponsored drug and device studies are more often favorable to the sponsor’s products than non-industry sponsored drug and device studies due to biases that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessment tools.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2018-01-31},\n\tjournal = {Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews},\n\tauthor = {Lundh, Andreas and Sismondo, Sergio and Lexchin, Joel and Busuioc, Octavian and Bero, Lisa},\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tnote = {1},\n\tkeywords = {5 Ignorance and manufactured doubt, 8 Ignorance and funding bias, Biais de financement, Ignorance et mécanismes de production du doute, PRINTED (Fonds papier)},\n\tpages = {91 p.},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Lundh, A.","Sismondo, S.","Lexchin, J.","Busuioc, O.","Bero, L."],"key":"lundh_industry_2012","id":"lundh_industry_2012","bibbaseid":"lundh-sismondo-lexchin-busuioc-bero-industrysponsorshipandresearchoutcome-2012","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.inshs.bib.cnrs.fr/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2/abstract"},"keyword":["5 Ignorance and manufactured doubt","8 Ignorance and funding bias","Biais de financement","Ignorance et mécanismes de production du doute","PRINTED (Fonds papier)"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0},"search_terms":["industry","sponsorship","research","outcome","lundh","sismondo","lexchin","busuioc","bero"],"keywords":["5 ignorance and manufactured doubt","8 ignorance and funding bias","biais de financement","ignorance et mécanismes de production du doute","printed (fonds papier)"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["zX4acseCDM6D58AW7","NTvuMntpta5z9CAbT"]}