Literature DB >> 20595572

Relationship between declared funding support and level of evidence.

Shahryar Noordin1, James G Wright, Andrew Howard.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The relationship between industry and the orthopaedic community is under increasing scrutiny. Industry traditionally has funded a substantial amount of the orthopaedic research published in this and other journals. The objective of the present study was to investigate associations between the level of evidence and declared source(s) of funding in papers published in the American volume of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.
METHODS: All articles published in the American volume of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from January 2003 to December 2007 were reviewed by a single individual. Primary research papers with an assigned level of evidence were assessed with regard to source of funding, subject area, and results. The association between source of funding and level of evidence was described with use of contingency tables and chi-square tests.
RESULTS: Of 886 studies with an assigned level of evidence, 246 were funded by industry, of which 124 (50%) were graded as Level-IV evidence. Among 274 studies funded by governments, foundations, or universities, only seventy-nine (29%) were graded as Level-IV evidence. Among 366 studies with no funding declared, 209 (57%) were graded as Level-IV evidence. The association between industry funding and a lower level of evidence was significant (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: While industry funded a larger number of studies than any other single source in this journal, the level of evidence of industry-funded studies was lower that that for studies funded by governments, foundations, or universities. Improving the scientific quality of industry-funded research might increase the quality of evidence for making orthopaedic decisions.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20595572     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00224

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  7 in total

Review 1.  Current status of cost utility analyses in total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Benedict U Nwachukwu; Kevin J Bozic; William W Schairer; Jaime L Bernstein; David S Jevsevar; Robert G Marx; Douglas E Padgett
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Bias in cervical total disc replacement trials.

Authors:  Kristen Radcliff; Sean Siburn; Hamadi Murphy; Barrett Woods; Sheeraz Qureshi
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

3.  Study factors influencing ventricular enlargement in schizophrenia: a 20 year follow-up meta-analysis.

Authors:  Angelo Sayo; Robin G Jennings; John Darrell Van Horn
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Development of a pilot cartilage surgery register.

Authors:  Cathrine Nørstad Engen; Asbjørn Årøen; Lars Engebretsen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Level of Evidence and Industry Sponsorship Associated with Favorable Outcomes in Publications on Platelet-Rich-Plasma Therapy in Musculoskeletal Disorders.

Authors:  Pietro Felice Tomazini Nesello; Allan Cassio Baroni; Luciano da Silva Selistre
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2019-12-19

6.  Industry Payments to Foot and Ankle Surgeons and Their Effect on Total Ankle Arthroplasty Outcomes.

Authors:  J Scott Donoughe; Kiya Shazadeh Safavi; Aryan Rezvani; Nicholas Healy; Daniel C Jupiter; Vinod K Panchbhavi; Cory C Janney
Journal:  Foot Ankle Orthop       Date:  2021-09-14

7.  Development of a Valid and Reliable Knee Articular Cartilage Condition-Specific Study Methodological Quality Score.

Authors:  Joshua D Harris; Brandon J Erickson; Gregory L Cvetanovich; Geoffrey D Abrams; Frank M McCormick; Anil K Gupta; Nikhil N Verma; Bernard R Bach; Brian J Cole
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2014-02-07
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.