Review launched after Harvard psychiatrist failed to disclose industry funding.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lenzer J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2427133 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Review launched after Harvard psychiatrist failed to disclose industry funding.
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20080601 7657
Similar Datasets
Project description:The effect of diet on blood cholesterol concentrations has become controversial. We assessed whether industry-funded studies were more likely than non-industry-funded studies to report conclusions that were not supported by their objective findings. PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searches through March 8, 2019, yielded 211 relevant articles. The percentage of industry-funded studies increased from 0% in the 1950s to 60% for 2010 tp 2019 (P < .001). Of 94 non-industry-funded intervention studies for which the effect of egg ingestion on cholesterol concentrations could be determined, net cholesterol increases were reported in 88 (93%) studies (51% statistically significant, 21% not significant, 21% significance not reported). Among 59 industry-funded intervention studies, net cholesterol increases were reported in 51 (86%) studies (34% statistically significant, 39% not significant, and 14% significance not reported). No studies reported significant cholesterol decreases. Nonsignificant net cholesterol decreases were reported by 6 (6%) non-industry-funded and 8 (14%) industry-funded studies. However, 49% of industry-funded intervention studies reported conclusions that were discordant with study results (ie, net cholesterol increases were described as favorable in the articles' stated conclusions), compared with 13% of non-industry-funded studies. Readers, editors, and the public should remain alert to funding sources in interpreting study findings and conclusions.
| S-EPMC7958219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To investigate pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups. DESIGN:Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to January 2018; reference lists of eligible studies and experts in the field. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:Observational studies including cross sectional, cohort, case-control, interrupted time series, and before-after studies of patient groups reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups that disclosed information about this funding; and association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. Studies were included irrespective of language or publication type. REVIEW METHODS:Reviewers carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessment of study quality. An amended version of the checklist for prevalence studies developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute was used to assess study quality. A DerSimonian-Laird estimate of single proportions with Freeman-Tukey arcsine transformation was used for meta-analyses of prevalence. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. RESULTS:26 cross sectional studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 studies estimated the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). Among patient organisations that received industry funding, 27% (175/642; 95% confidence interval 24% to 31%) disclosed this information on their websites. In submissions to consultations, two studies showed very different disclosure rates (0% and 91%), which appeared to reflect differences in the relevant government agency's disclosure requirements. Prevalence estimates of organisational policies that govern corporate sponsorship ranged from 2% (2/125) to 64% (175/274). Four studies analysed the relationship between industry funding and organisational positions on a range of highly controversial issues. Industry funded groups generally supported sponsors' interests. CONCLUSION:In general, industry funding of patient groups seems to be common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 20% to 83%. Few patient groups have policies that govern corporate sponsorship. Transparency about corporate funding is also inadequate. Among the few studies that examined associations between industry funding and organisational positions, industry funded groups tended to have positions favourable to the sponsor. Patient groups have an important role in advocacy, education, and research, therefore strategies are needed to prevent biases that could favour the interests of sponsors above those of the public. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017079265.
| S-EPMC7190040 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6529850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo report the representation of female ophthalmologists receiving private industry funding from 2015 through 2018, and to compare to previously observed trends.DesignRetrospective, comparative trend study METHODS: The study population consisted of US ophthalmologists listed in CMS Open Payments Database. Data were reviewed for payments for research, consulting, honoraria, industry grants, faculty and speakers, royalties, and services other than consulting. The primary outcome measure was percentage of female representation compared to male in each sub-category of payment.ResultsThe percentage of female, board-certified ophthalmologists who practiced in the United States ranged from 21.3% to 24.1%. The total number of reported ophthalmologists with industry ties ranged from 1629 to 1873, of whom between 17.2% and 19.4% were women. Women received significantly less industry compensation by than men in 2015 (median average $3273 vs $4825, P = .003), 2016 ($3600 vs $4750, P = .023), 2017 ($2493 vs $3500, P = .013), and 2018 ($2000 vs $3000, P = .011). Women remained underrepresented in receiving payments for research (ranging from 5.4% of total paid for research to 8.0%), consulting (11%-17.4%), honoraria (6%-14.9%), industry grants (4%-41.2%), royalties and licenses (0.1%-10.2%), faculty and speakers (11.6%-16.4%), and services other than consulting (8.4%-28.9%). Compared to 2013-2014, an increasing proportion of women received industry payments for consulting (P = .012), honoraria (P = .007), royalties and licenses (P = .019), faculty and speakers (P = .007), and services other than consulting (P = .007).ConclusionsFemale ophthalmologists remain underrepresented in terms of the percentage of women who receive private industry funding and dollar value of the funding.
| S-EPMC8863585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the relationship between UK-based patient organisation funding and companies' commercial interests in rare and non-rare diseases in 2020.DesignRetrospective analysis of the value and volume of payments from pharmaceutical companies to patient organisations in the UK matched with data on the conditions supported by patient organisations and drugs in companies' approved portfolios and research and development pipelines.SettingUK.Participants74 pharmaceutical companies making payments to 341 UK-based patient organisations.Main outcome measuresAlignment between the commercial interests of pharmaceutical companies and the disease area focus of patient organisations; difference in the volume and value of payments to patient organisations broken down by prevalence of conditions; industry funding concentration, measured as the number of companies funding each patient organisation, the share of overall industry funding coming from each contributing company and the share of industry funding of each organisation comprised by the single highest payments.Results1422 payments were made by 74 companies to 341 patient organisations. Almost all funds (90%) from pharmaceutical companies were directed to patient organisations that are aligned with companies' approved drug portfolios and research and development pipelines. Despite rare diseases affecting less than 5% of the UK population, more than 20% of all payments were directed to patient organisations which target such conditions. Patient organisations focusing on rare diseases relied on payments from fewer companies (p value=0.0031) compared to organisations focusing on non-rare diseases.ConclusionsCompanies predominantly funded patient organisations operating in therapeutic areas relevant to companies' portfolio or drug development pipeline. Patient organisations focusing on rare diseases received more funding relative to the number of patients affected by these conditions and relied more heavily on payments from fewer companies compared to organisations targeting non-rare diseases. Increased independence of patient organisations could help avoid conflicts of interest.
| S-EPMC10410975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeIndustry payments to physicians are financial conflicts of interest and may influence research findings and medical decisions. We aim to (1) characterize industry payments within radiation oncology; and (2) explore the potential correlation between receiving disclosed industry payments and academic productivity.Materials/methodsCMS database was used to extract 2015 industry payments. For academic radiation oncologists, research productivity was characterized by h- and m-indices, as well as receipt of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, which is not an industry payment. Logistic regression models were used to determine whether publication metrics (m-index, h-index) and other study characteristics such as gender, PhD status, NIH institution funding status, were associated with the endpoints, research and general payments. Associations between the amount of payments (if any) and publication metrics were further studied using linear regression models.ResultsA total of 22,543 individual payments totaling $25,532,482 to 2,995 radiation oncologists were included. Among the 1,189 academic radiation oncologists, 75% received less than $167; on the other hand, 10 (<1%) individuals received $6,425,728 (51%) of payments. On multiple logistic regression, research payments were significantly associated with the m-index, odds ratio 2.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.84-4.45, p-value <0.0001); as well as with the h-index, odds ratio 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.05, p-value <0.0001). The linear regression model shows that both m-index and h-index were significantly positively associated with the amount of general payments (p-values <0.0001).ConclusionThere is an association between disclosed payment from the industry and increased individual research productivity metrics. Further research to find the cause behind this association is warranted.
| S-EPMC9627577 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: There has been substantial interest from the pharmaceutical industry to study and develop new biologic agents. Previous studies outside of the biologics field have demonstrated that industry funding has the potential to impact the design and findings of clinical trials. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of industry funding on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of biologic therapies. Methods: A review of all RCTs involving biologic therapies in top impact factor medical journals from January 2018 to December 2020 was performed. The relationship between industry funding and the presence of statistically significant primary outcomes and the use of active comparators were analyzed. Results: Among the 157 RCTs included, 120 (76%) were industry funded and 37 (24%) declared no industry funding. Industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to report a statistically significant positive primary outcome compared to studies without industry funding (85% vs. 67%, χ2 = 5.867, p = 0.015) and were significantly more likely to utilize placebo or no comparator than non-industry-funded trials (78% vs. 49%, χ2 = 4.430, p = 0.035). Conclusions: Industry-funded trials investigating biologic therapies are more likely to yield statistically significant positive outcomes and use placebo comparators when compared to non-industry-funded biologic therapy trials in high-impact medical journals.
| S-EPMC8951352 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the extent to which funding and study design are associated with high reprint orders.DesignCase-control study.SettingTop articles by size of reprint orders in seven journals, 2002-09.ParticipantsLancet, Lancet Neurology, Lancet Oncology (Lancet Group), BMJ, Gut, Heart, and Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry (BMJ Group) matched to contemporaneous articles not in the list of high reprint orders.Main outcome measuresFunding and design of randomised controlled trials or other study designs.ResultsMedian reprint orders for the seven journals ranged from 3000 to 126,350. Papers with high reprint orders were more likely to be funded by the pharmaceutical industry than were control papers (industry funding versus other or none: odds ratio 8.64, 95% confidence interval 5.09 to 14.68, and mixed funding versus other or none: 3.72, 2.43 to 5.70).ConclusionsFunding by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with high numbers of reprint orders.
| S-EPMC3386142 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pharmaceutical companies regularly fund patient organizations. It is important for patient organizations' credibility that there be transparency regarding this financial support. In Europe, the pharmaceutical industry promises to deliver transparency through self-regulation, as opposed to legally binding provisions, but self-regulation's effectiveness is contested. We compared the industry's transparency of funding in four Nordic countries that, given their general reputation for high transparency, offered a critical test of self-regulation's ability to deliver on its transparency promise. For 2017-2019, we compared: national rules regarding funding disclosure; disclosure practices as evidenced by the availability, accessibility, and format of company transparency reports; and disclosure data, including payment descriptions and sums. Transparency problems differed in kind and magnitude between countries. In Norway and Finland, unlike in Sweden and Denmark, data on funding were difficult to access and analyze and sometimes seemed incomplete or missing. We explain that a key factor allowing for country differences is the freedom given to a country's pharmaceutical industry trade associations to form self-regulatory rules, provided they do not fall below the weak, European-level minimum requirements. Transparency could be improved by aligning rules and practices with the FAIR data principles: that is, corporate disclosures should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable.
| S-EPMC9203660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlcohol's effects on heart health is the site of a major scientific controversy. We conducted a co-authorship network analysis of systematic reviews on the impacts on alcohol on cardiovascular disease (CVD) in order to investigate patterns of co-authorship in the literature, with particular attention given to industry funding.MethodsWe used Epistemonikos to identify systematic reviews. Review characteristics, influential authors, co-authorship subnetworks, prior histories of alcohol industry funding, study outcomes and citations were investigated.Results60 systematic reviews with 231 unique authors met our inclusion criteria. 14 systematic reviews were undertaken by authors with histories of alcohol industry funding, including 5 that were funded directly by the alcohol industry itself. All 14 such reviews identified a cardioprotective effect of alcohol. These formed distinct co-authorship subnetworks within the literature. Of reviews by authors with no prior histories of alcohol industry funding, the findings were mixed, with 54% (25/46) concluding there was evidence of health protective effects. These two groups of reviews differed in other respects. Those with industry funding were more likely to study broader outcomes such as 'cardiovascular disease' or 'coronary heart disease' as opposed to specific CVD issues such as hypertension or stroke (93% [13/14] versus 41% [19/46]) (chi-squared 12.4, p < 0.001) and have more included studies (mean of 29 versus 20). They were also more widely cited by others. Over time the proportions of systematic reviews on CVD and alcohol undertaken by authors with no prior histories of alcohol industry funding has increased.ConclusionsSystematic reviews undertaken by authors with histories of alcohol industry funding were more likely to study broader outcomes, and be cited more widely, and exclusively reported favorable conclusions.
| S-EPMC8586735 | biostudies-literature