Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review

Abstract

Objective: To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support.

Methods: Medline (January 1966 to December 2002) and Embase (January 1980 to December 2002) searches were supplemented with material identified in the references and in the authors' personal files. Data were independently abstracted by three of the authors and disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Results: 30 studies were included. Research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published than research funded by other sources. Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors (odds ratio 4.05; 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.51; 18 comparisons). None of the 13 studies that analysed methods reported that studies funded by industry was of poorer quality.

Conclusion: Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.

Fig 1

QUOROM statement

Fig 2

Source of funding and outcome in pharmacoeconomic analyses, clinical trials, and meta-analyses of clinical trials of drug treatments; for references see bmj.com (*Favourable qualitative results; †Overstatement of quantitative results; ‡Reporting possibility of cost effectiveness or cost savings of prophylaxis in entire high risk infant population either in point estimates or sensitivity analysis; §Reporting cost effectiveness or cost savings in either entire high risk populations or specific infant subgroups compared across studies; ¶Analyses reported in general medical journals; **Analyses reported in Pharmacoeconomics)