» Articles » PMID: 12775614

Pharmaceutical Industry Sponsorship and Research Outcome and Quality: Systematic Review

Overview
Journal BMJ
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2003 May 31
PMID 12775614
Citations 582
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support.

Methods: Medline (January 1966 to December 2002) and Embase (January 1980 to December 2002) searches were supplemented with material identified in the references and in the authors' personal files. Data were independently abstracted by three of the authors and disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Results: 30 studies were included. Research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published than research funded by other sources. Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors (odds ratio 4.05; 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.51; 18 comparisons). None of the 13 studies that analysed methods reported that studies funded by industry was of poorer quality.

Conclusion: Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.

Citing Articles

The power of lived experience in optimizing US policymakers' engagement with substance use research: A series of rapid-cycle randomized controlled trials.

Long E, Loria R, Pugel J, ONeill P, Cioffi C, Hsuan C Drug Alcohol Depend Rep. 2024; 13:100299.

PMID: 39650743 PMC: 11621502. DOI: 10.1016/j.dadr.2024.100299.


Academic vs. industry-sponsored trials: A global survey on differences, similarities, and future improvements.

Hoffmann J, Bauer A, Grossmann R J Glob Health. 2024; 14:04204.

PMID: 39575754 PMC: 11583285. DOI: 10.7189/jogh.14.04204.


The Challenges for EU User Testing Policies for Patient Information Leaflets.

Pelizzari N Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024; 21(10).

PMID: 39457274 PMC: 11507276. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph21101301.


Dissemination and outcome reporting bias in clinical malaria intervention trials: a cross-sectional analysis.

Pool L, Ruiz Del Portal Luyten C, van der Pluijm R, Soentjens P, Hanscheid T, Grobusch M Malar J. 2024; 23(1):293.

PMID: 39350104 PMC: 11443699. DOI: 10.1186/s12936-024-05115-6.


Enhancing quality of life in epilepsy with a digital intervention (emyna): Results of the ELAINE randomized controlled trial.

Meyer B, Betz L, Bruckner K, Holtkamp M Epilepsia Open. 2024; 9(5):1758-1771.

PMID: 39167060 PMC: 11450619. DOI: 10.1002/epi4.13014.


References
1.
Berlin J, Rennie D . Measuring the quality of trials: the quality of quality scales. JAMA. 1999; 282(11):1083-5. DOI: 10.1001/jama.282.11.1083. View

2.
Hill S, Mitchell A, Henry D . Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA. 2000; 283(16):2116-21. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.16.2116. View

3.
Koepp R, Miles S . Meta-analysis of tacrine for Alzheimer disease: the influence of industry sponsors. JAMA. 1999; 281(24):2287-8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.281.24.2287. View

4.
Horton R, Smith R . Time to register randomised trials. The case is now unanswerable. BMJ. 1999; 319(7214):865-6. PMC: 1116704. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.319.7214.865. View

5.
Rochon P, Gurwitz J, Simms R, Fortin P, Felson D, Minaker K . A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med. 1994; 154(2):157-63. View