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
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 Mar 14;18(1):125.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1872-0.

The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013-2015 - a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis

Alberto Falk Delgado  1   2 , Anna Falk Delgado  3   4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013-2015 - a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis

Alberto Falk Delgado et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: Trials financed by for-profit organizations have been associated with favorable outcomes of new treatments, although the effect size of funding source impact on outcome is unknown. The aim of this study was to estimate the effect size for a favorable outcome in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), stratified by funding source, that have been published in general medical journals.

Methods: Parallel-group RCTs published in The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA between 2013 and 2015 were identified. RCTs with binary primary endpoints were included. The primary outcome was the OR of patients' having a favorable outcome in the intervention group compared with the control group. The OR of a favorable outcome in each trial was calculated by the number of positive events that occurred in the intervention and control groups. A meta-analytic technique with random effects model was used to calculate summary OR. Data were stratified by funding source as for-profit, mixed, and nonprofit. Prespecified sensitivity, subgroup, and metaregression analyses were performed.

Results: Five hundred nine trials were included. The OR for a favorable outcome in for-profit-funded RCTs was 1.92 (95% CI 1.72-2.14), which was higher than mixed source-funded RCTs (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.25-1.43) and nonprofit-funded RCTs (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.26-1.39). The OR for a favorable outcome was higher for both clinical and surrogate endpoints in for-profit-funded trials than in RCTs with other funding sources. Excluding drug trials lowered the OR for a favorable outcome in for-profit-funded RCTs. The OR for a favorable surrogate outcome in drug trials was higher in for-profit-funded trials than in nonprofit-funded trials.

Conclusions: For-profit-funded RCTs have a higher OR for a favorable outcome than nonprofit- and mixed source-funded RCTs. This difference is associated mainly with the use of surrogate endpoints in for-profit-financed drug trials.

Keywords: Endpoint; For-profit; Funding; Odds ratio; Surrogate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:MR000033. - PubMed
    1. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289(4):454–65. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.4.454. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ridker PM, Torres J. Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000–2005. JAMA. 2006;295(19):2270–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.19.2270. - DOI - 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(9230):635–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02605-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA. 2003;290(7):921–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.7.921. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources