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
Review
. 2012 Jul;36(7):977-81.
doi: 10.1038/ijo.2011.207. Epub 2011 Nov 8.

Is funding source related to study reporting quality in obesity or nutrition randomized control trials in top-tier medical journals?

K A Kaiser  1 , S S Cofield, K R Fontaine, S P Glasser, L Thabane, R Chu, S Ambrale, A D Dwary, A Kumar, G Nayyar, O Affuso, M Beasley, D B Allison
Affiliations
Review

Is funding source related to study reporting quality in obesity or nutrition randomized control trials in top-tier medical journals?

K A Kaiser et al. Int J Obes (Lond). 2012 Jul.

Abstract

Background: Faithful and complete reporting of trial results is essential to the validity of the scientific literature. An earlier systematic study of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found that industry-funded RCTs appeared to be reported with greater quality than non-industry-funded RCTs. The aim of this study was to examine the association between systematic differences in reporting quality and funding status (that is, industry funding vs non-industry funding) among recent obesity and nutrition RCTs published in top-tier medical journals.

Methods: Thirty-eight obesity or nutrition intervention RCT articles were selected from high-profile, general medical journals (The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA and the British Medical Journal) published between 2000 and 2007. Paired papers were selected from the same journal published in the same year, one with and the other without industry funding. The following identifying information was redacted: journal, title, authors, funding source and institution(s). Then three raters independently and blindly rated each paper according to the Chalmers method, and total reporting quality scores were calculated.

Findings: The inter-rater reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was 0.82 (95% confidence interval = 0.80-0.84). The total mean (M) and s.d. of Chalmers Index quality score (out of a possible 100) for industry-funded studies were M = 84.5, s.d. = 7.04 and for non-industry-funded studies they were M = 79.4, s.d. = 13.00. A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test indicates no significant rank difference in the distributions of total quality scores between funding sources, Z = -0.966, P = 0.334 (two tailed).

Interpretation: Recently published RCTs on nutrition and obesity that appear in top-tier journals seem to be equivalent in quality of reporting, regardless of funding source. This may be a result of recent reporting of quality statements and efforts of journal editors to raise all papers to a common standard.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Moher D. CONSORT: an evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. JAMA. 1998;279/18:1489–1491. - PubMed
    1. Mills EJ, Wu P, Gagnier J, Devereaux PJ. The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26/4:480–487. - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001;285/15:1992–1995. - PubMed
    1. Allison DB. The antidote to bias in research. Science. 2009;326/5952:522–523. - PubMed
    1. Allison DB, Cope MB. Randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results. JAMA. 2010;304/9:965. - PubMed

Publication types