Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2002 Aug 3;325(7358):249.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7358.249.

Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ

Lise L Kjaergard  1 , Bodil Als-Nielsen
Affiliations

Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ

Lise L Kjaergard et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To assess the association between competing interests and authors' conclusions in randomised clinical trials.

Design: Epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ from January 1997 to June 2001. Financial competing interests were defined as funding by for profit organisations and other competing interests as personal, academic, or political.

Studies: 159 trials from 12 medical specialties.

Main outcome measures: Authors' conclusions defined as interpretation of extent to which overall results favoured experimental intervention. Conclusions appraised on 6 point scale; higher scores favour experimental intervention.

Results: Authors' conclusions were significantly more positive towards the experimental intervention in trials funded by for profit organisations alone compared with trials without competing interests (mean difference 0.48 (SE 0.13), P=0.014), trials funded by both for profit and non-profit organisations (0.30 (SE 0.10), P=0.003), and trials with other competing interests (0.45 (SE 0.13), P=0.006). Other competing interests and funding from both for profit and non-profit organisations were not significantly associated with authors' conclusions. The association between financial competing interests and authors' conclusions was not explained by methodological quality, statistical power, type of experimental intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological), type of control intervention (for example, placebo or active drug), or medical specialty.

Conclusions: Authors' conclusions in randomised clinical trials significantly favoured experimental interventions if financial competing interests were declared. Other competing interests were not significantly associated with authors' conclusions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure
Figure
Source of funding and authors' conclusions assessed by 6 point scale (higher scores favour experimental intervention). Points are means with 95% confidence intervals
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Smith R. Beyond conflict of interest. Transparency is the key. BMJ. 1998;317:291–292. - 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;356:635–638. - PubMed
    1. Wahlbeck K, Adams C. Beyond conflict of interest. Sponsored drug trials show more favourable outcomes. BMJ. 1999;318:465. - PubMed
    1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408–412. - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352:609–613. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources