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

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

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

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.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftIntensive Care Medicine
Vol/bind44
Udgave nummer10
Sider (fra-til)1603–1612
ISSN0342-4642
DOI
StatusUdgivet - okt. 2018

Fingeraftryk

Meta-Analysis
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Equipment and Supplies
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Research
MEDLINE
Research Design

Citer dette

Lundh, Andreas ; Lexchin, Joel ; Mintzes, Barbara ; Schroll, Jeppe B ; Bero, Lisa. / Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis. I: Intensive Care Medicine. 2018 ; Bind 44, Nr. 10. s. 1603–1612.
@article{0994b266b62a4930b1f43255a0e04c55,
title = "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 = "Drug Industry, Equipment and Supplies, Research Support as Topic, Treatment Outcome",
author = "Andreas Lundh and Joel Lexchin and Barbara Mintzes and Schroll, {Jeppe B} and Lisa Bero",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1007/s00134-018-5293-7",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "1603–1612",
journal = "Intensive Care Medicine",
issn = "0342-4642",
publisher = "Heinemann",
number = "10",

}

Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis. / Lundh, Andreas; Lexchin, Joel; Mintzes, Barbara; Schroll, Jeppe B; Bero, Lisa.

I: Intensive Care Medicine, Bind 44, Nr. 10, 10.2018, s. 1603–1612.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis

AU - Lundh, Andreas

AU - Lexchin, Joel

AU - Mintzes, Barbara

AU - Schroll, Jeppe B

AU - Bero, Lisa

PY - 2018/10

Y1 - 2018/10

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Drug Industry

KW - Equipment and Supplies

KW - Research Support as Topic

KW - Treatment Outcome

U2 - 10.1007/s00134-018-5293-7

DO - 10.1007/s00134-018-5293-7

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 30132025

VL - 44

SP - 1603

EP - 1612

JO - Intensive Care Medicine

JF - Intensive Care Medicine

SN - 0342-4642

IS - 10

ER -