Literature DB >> 18667655

Evaluating solutions to sponsorship bias.

M Doucet1, S Sismondo.   

Abstract

More than 40 primary studies, and three recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses, have shown a clear association between pharmaceutical industry funding of clinical trials and pro-industry results. Industry sponsorship biases published scientific research in favour of the sponsors, a result of the strong interest commercial sponsors have in obtaining favourable results. Three proposed remedies to this problem are widely agreed upon among those concerned with the level of sponsorship bias: financial disclosure, reporting standards and trial registries. This paper argues that all of these remedies either fail to address the mechanisms by which pharmaceutical companies' sponsorship leads to biased results-design bias, multiple trials with predictable outcomes, fraud, rhetorical effects and publication bias-or else only inadequately address those mechanisms. As a result, the policies normally proposed for dealing with sponsorship bias are unable to eliminate it. Only completely separating public clinical research from pharmaceutical industry funding can eliminate sponsorship bias.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18667655     DOI: 10.1136/jme.2007.022467

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  11 in total

1.  The need for a transparent, ethical, and successful relationship between academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry: a view of the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES).

Authors:  O Bruyere; J A Kanis; M-E Ibar-Abadie; N Alsayed; M L Brandi; N Burlet; D L Cahall; A Chines; J-P Devogelaer; W Dere; N Goel; N Hughes; J-M Kaufman; S Korte; B H Mitlak; D Niese; R Rizzoli; L C Rovati; J-Y Reginster
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  The nature and influence of pharmaceutical industry involvement in asthma trials.

Authors:  Ken Bond; Carol Spooner; Lisa Tjosvold; Catherine Lemière; Brian H Rowe
Journal:  Can Respir J       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.409

3.  Teaching Conflict: Professionalism and Medical Education.

Authors:  K J Holloway
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 1.352

4.  Relationship between sponsorship and failure rate of dental implants: a systematic approach.

Authors:  Antoine Popelut; Fabien Valet; Olivier Fromentin; Aurélie Thomas; Philippe Bouchard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-04-21       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Result publication of Chinese trials in World Health Organization primary registries.

Authors:  Xuemei Liu; Youping Li; Senlin Yin; Shangqi Song
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-09-13       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Inversed relationship between completeness of follow-up and coverage of postoperative complications in gallstone surgery and ERCP: a potential source of bias in patient registers.

Authors:  Lars Enochsson; My Blohm; Gabriel Sandblom; Eduard Jonas; Bengt Hallerbäck; Lars Lundell; Johanna Österberg
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Open Science for private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to the Commercialization of Research.

Authors:  Manuela Fernández Pinto
Journal:  Front Res Metr Anal       Date:  2020-11-10

8.  Association of trial registration with the results and conclusions of published trials of new oncology drugs.

Authors:  Nicolas Rasmussen; Kirby Lee; Lisa Bero
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Efficacy of alogliptin in type 2 diabetes treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized double-blind controlled studies.

Authors:  Asres Berhan; Yifru Berhan
Journal:  BMC Endocr Disord       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 2.763

10.  Moving towards less biased research.

Authors:  Mark Yarborough
Journal:  BMJ Open Sci       Date:  2021-01-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.