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
. 2020 Jan 13:14:81-88.
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S233816. eCollection 2020.

Effect of Funding Source on "Spin" in Studies of Ocriplasmin Therapy for Vitreomacular Traction and Macular Hole

Sasha Hubschman  1 , Michael J Venincasa  1 , Ajay E Kuriyan  2 , Jayanth Sridhar  1
Affiliations

Effect of Funding Source on "Spin" in Studies of Ocriplasmin Therapy for Vitreomacular Traction and Macular Hole

Sasha Hubschman et al. Clin Ophthalmol. .

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the relationship between industry funding and "spin" in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses investigating use of ocriplasmin for patients with vitreomacular traction (VMT) and macular hole (MH).

Methods: In this study, we examined all PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE RCTs and meta-analyses published in journals with impact factor ≥2 investigating effectiveness of ocriplasmin use for VMT and MH. The main outcome measure was correspondence between the studies' main statistical outcome and their abstract conclusion wording. Each article was reviewed by three independent observers and was evaluated for source of funding, industry co-authorship, study methodology, statistical significance of main outcome measure, correspondence between results of main outcome measure and abstract conclusion, and journal impact factor. Funding was determined by public disclosure. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

Results: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, of which 11 were industry funded and 1 was non-industry funded; 11 (91.67%) showed correspondence between outcome and abstract conclusion, without difference between industry-funded and non-industry funded publications or between publications in journals with high impact factor (≥3) versus low impact factor (≥2 and <3).

Conclusion: In RCTs and meta-analyses of ocriplasmin for VMT and MH, our results suggest that neither industry funding nor journal impact factor affected the rate of "spin" in study conclusions. This study helps physicians understand what challenges they face when learning about a newer, less-established drug.

Keywords: macular hole; microplasmin; ocriplasmin; spin; vitreolysis; vitreomacular traction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

JS is a consultant for Alcon, Allergan PLC, and Alimera Sciences, Inc. JS reports personal fees from Alcon, Alimera Science, and Oxurion, outside the submitted work. AEK is a consultant for Regeneron; Alimera Sciences, Inc.; Valeant; and Allergan PLC. AEK reports grants and personal fees from Genentech, grants from Second Sight, personal fees from Allergan, Alimera Sciences, Regeneron, and Bausch Health, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Selection of randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses investigating ocriplasmin use for patients with vitreomacular traction and macular holes.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Alasbali T, Smith M, Geffen N, et al. Discrepancy between results and abstract conclusions in industry- vs nonindustry-funded studies comparing topical prostaglandins. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;147(1):33–38 e32. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2008.07.005 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brown A, Kraft D, Schmitz SM, et al. Association of industry sponsorship to published outcomes in gastrointestinal clinical research. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4(12):1445–1451. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2006.08.019 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L. ‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: a methodological systematic review. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(9):e2002173. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2002173 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303(20):2058–2064. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.651 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barton S. Using clinical evidence. BMJ. 2001;322(7285):503–504. doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7285.503 - DOI - PMC - PubMed