Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis
- PMID: 30132025
- DOI: 10.1007/s00134-018-5293-7
Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis
Abstract
Purpose: Clinical research is widely sponsored by drug and device companies. We investigated whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review.
Methods: In this update we searched MEDLINE and Embase (2010 to February 2015), Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). We included empirical studies that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. Two assessors included papers, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether conclusions agreed with results.
Results: We included 27 additional papers in this update (review now includes 75 papers). Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI 1.17-1.37), no difference in harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI 0.64-2.93) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI 1.19-1.51) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in reporting of data and heterogeneity of results. Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI 1.05-1.50), compared with non-industry sponsored studies.
Conclusions: Drug and device studies sponsored by manufacturing companies have more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than studies sponsored by other sources.
Keywords: Bias; Clinical trials; Conflicts of interest; Industry sponsorship; Methodological quality; Outcomes.
Similar articles
-
The Relationship between Risk of Bias Criteria, Research Outcomes, and Study Sponsorship in a Cohort of Preclinical Thiazolidinedione Animal Studies: A Meta-Analysis.Evid Based Preclin Med. 2014 Apr;1(1):11-20. doi: 10.1002/ebm2.5. Evid Based Preclin Med. 2014. PMID: 25642330 Free PMC article.
-
Nonindustry-sponsored preclinical studies on statins yield greater efficacy estimates than industry-sponsored studies: a meta-analysis.PLoS Biol. 2014 Jan;12(1):e1001770. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001770. Epub 2014 Jan 21. PLoS Biol. 2014. PMID: 24465178 Free PMC article.
-
Industry sponsorship bias in clinical trials in implant dentistry: Systematic review and meta-regression.J Clin Periodontol. 2019 Apr;46(4):510-519. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13100. Epub 2019 Mar 28. J Clin Periodontol. 2019. PMID: 30830688
-
Industry sponsorship and publication bias among animal studies evaluating the effects of statins on atherosclerosis and bone outcomes: a meta-analysis.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Mar 6;15:12. doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0008-z. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015. PMID: 25880564 Free PMC article.
-
Association of industry sponsorship to published outcomes in gastrointestinal clinical research.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006 Dec;4(12):1445-51. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2006.08.019. Epub 2006 Nov 13. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006. PMID: 17101295
Cited by
-
Ten Years of Sports Health: Authorship Characteristics and Levels of Evidence.Sports Health. 2020 Nov/Dec;12(6):573-578. doi: 10.1177/1941738120922163. Epub 2020 Jul 6. Sports Health. 2020. PMID: 32628560 Free PMC article.
-
Physicians' attitudes towards disclosure of payments from pharmaceutical companies in a nationwide voluntary transparency database: a cross-sectional survey.BMJ Open. 2022 Jun 24;12(6):e055963. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055963. BMJ Open. 2022. PMID: 35750457 Free PMC article.
-
Chinese Medicine as an Adjunctive Treatment for Gastric Cancer: Methodological Investigation of meta-Analyses and Evidence Map.Front Pharmacol. 2022 Jan 10;12:797753. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.797753. eCollection 2021. Front Pharmacol. 2022. PMID: 35082677 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Breastfeeding and the origins of health: Interdisciplinary perspectives and priorities.Matern Child Nutr. 2021 Apr;17(2):e13109. doi: 10.1111/mcn.13109. Epub 2020 Nov 19. Matern Child Nutr. 2021. PMID: 33210456 Free PMC article.
-
International Collaboration and Commercial Involvement in Randomized Controlled Trials From 10 Leading Countries, 1997 Through 2019.Cureus. 2024 May 27;16(5):e61205. doi: 10.7759/cureus.61205. eCollection 2024 May. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 38939267 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Wyatt J (1991) Use and sources of medical knowledge. Lancet 338:1368–1373 - PubMed
-
- PhRMA. Pharmaceutical marketing in perspective: its value and role as one of many factors informing prescribing. http://phrma-docs.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/phrma_marketing_broc... . Accessed 26 April 2018
-
- Moses H 3rd, Matheson DH, Cairns-Smith S, George BP, Palisch C, Dorsey ER (2015) The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA 313:174–189 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources