Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30132025›Full record

SynthesisIntensive care medicine2018

Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis.

Andreas Lundh, Joel Lexchin, Barbara Mintzes, Jeppe B Schroll, Lisa Bero

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Intensive care medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Ginseng and health outcomes: an umbrella review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Ten Years ofSports health
    Pooled it
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Andreas LundhCentre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO), Odense University Hospital, Kløvervænget 10, 13th Floor, Gate 112, 5000, Odense, Denmark. andreas.hover.lundh@rsyd.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4982-8680
Joel LexchinSchool of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, Canada.
Barbara MintzesCharles Perkins Centre and Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Jeppe B SchrollDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hvidovre Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Lisa BeroCharles Perkins Centre and Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeClinical 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.

methodsIn 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.

resultsWe 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.

conclusionsDrug and device studies sponsored by manufacturing companies have more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than studies sponsored by other sources.

Indexed as

Drug IndustryResearch Support as TopicEquipment and SuppliesTreatment OutcomeBiasClinical trialsConflicts of interestIndustry sponsorshipMethodological qualityOutcomes

Identifiers

PMID30132025

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.