Nickalus R Khan1, Hassan Saad2, Chesney S Oravec3, Nicholas Rossi1, Vincent Nguyen1, Garrett T Venable1, Jock C Lillard2, Prayash Patel1, Douglas R Taylor1, Brandy N Vaughn3, Douglas Kondziolka4, Fred G Barker5, L Madison Michael6,7, Paul Klimo6,7,8. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, University of?Tennessee?Health?Science?Center,?Memphis, Tennessee. 2. Arkansas Neuroscience Institute, CHI St. Vincent Infirmary, Little Rock, Arkansas. 3. College of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee. 7. Semmes Murphey Clinic, Memphis, Tennessee. 8. Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the role of industry sponsorship of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published exclusively in 3 major North American neurosurgical journals. METHODS: Our primary objective was to determine whether an association exists between study conclusion(s) in favor of industry sponsored drugs, devices/implants, or surgical techniques and industry sponsorship. The secondary objective was to describe the quality/quantity of these neurosurgical RCTs. RESULTS: A total of 110 RCTs were analyzed, the majority were published in the Journal of Neurosurgery (85%) and were international in origin (55%). The most common subspecialty was spine (n = 29) and drug study was the most common type (n = 49). Overall quality was good with median Jadad and Detsky scores of 4 (range, 1-5) and 18 (range, 8-21), respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in RCTs with industry funding (31/40, 78%) versus those without (9/70, 13%) that published a favorable conclusion of the new drug, device/implant, or surgical technique (odds ratio [OR], 23.35; P < .0001). Multiple binomial logistic regression analysis identified "number of authors" as mildly protective (OR, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91; P = .001) and "industry funding" strongly predictive (OR, 12.34; 95% confidence interval, 2.97-51.29; P = .001) of a positive trial. CONCLUSION: Industry funding was associated with a much greater chance of positive findings in RCTs published in neurosurgical journals. Further efforts are needed to define the relationship between the authors and financial sponsors of neurosurgical research and explore the reasons for this finding.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the role of industry sponsorship of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published exclusively in 3 major North American neurosurgical journals. METHODS: Our primary objective was to determine whether an association exists between study conclusion(s) in favor of industry sponsored drugs, devices/implants, or surgical techniques and industry sponsorship. The secondary objective was to describe the quality/quantity of these neurosurgical RCTs. RESULTS: A total of 110 RCTs were analyzed, the majority were published in the Journal of Neurosurgery (85%) and were international in origin (55%). The most common subspecialty was spine (n = 29) and drug study was the most common type (n = 49). Overall quality was good with median Jadad and Detsky scores of 4 (range, 1-5) and 18 (range, 8-21), respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in RCTs with industry funding (31/40, 78%) versus those without (9/70, 13%) that published a favorable conclusion of the new drug, device/implant, or surgical technique (odds ratio [OR], 23.35; P < .0001). Multiple binomial logistic regression analysis identified "number of authors" as mildly protective (OR, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91; P = .001) and "industry funding" strongly predictive (OR, 12.34; 95% confidence interval, 2.97-51.29; P = .001) of a positive trial. CONCLUSION: Industry funding was associated with a much greater chance of positive findings in RCTs published in neurosurgical journals. Further efforts are needed to define the relationship between the authors and financial sponsors of neurosurgical research and explore the reasons for this finding.
Authors: Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Daeria O Lawson; Livia Puljak; David B Allison; Lehana Thabane Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 4.615