Ethan A Litman1, Steven L Gortmaker2, Cara B Ebbeling3, David S Ludwig3. 1. 1Department of Medical Education, Albany Medical College, Albany NY,USA. 2. 2Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA,USA. 3. 3New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center, Boston Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Financial conflicts of interest involving the food industry have been reported to bias nutrition studies. However, some have hypothesized that independently funded studies may be biased if the authors have strong a priori beliefs about the healthfulness of a food product ('white hat bias'). The extent to which each source of bias may affect the scientific literature has not been examined. We aimed to explore this question with research involving sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) as a test case, focusing on a period during which scientific consensus about the adverse health effects of SSB emerged from uncertainty. DESIGN: PubMed search of worldwide literature was used to identify articles related to SSB and health risks published between 2001 and 2013. Financial relationships and article conclusions were classified by independent groups of co-investigators. Associations were explored by Fischer's exact tests and regression analyses, controlling for covariates. RESULTS: A total of 133 articles published in English met inclusion criteria. The proportion of industry-related scientific studies decreased significantly with time, from approximately 30 % at the beginning of the study period to <5 % towards the end (P=0·003). A 'strong' or 'qualified' scientific conclusion was reached in 82 % of independent v. 7 % of industry-related SSB studies (P<0·001). Industry-related studies were overwhelmingly more likely to reach 'weak/null' conclusions compared with independent studies regarding the adverse effects of SSB consumption on health (OR=57·30, 95 % CI 7·12, 461·56). CONCLUSION: Industry-related research during a critical period appears biased to underestimate the adverse health effects of SSB, potentially delaying corrective public health action.
OBJECTIVE: Financial conflicts of interest involving the food industry have been reported to bias nutrition studies. However, some have hypothesized that independently funded studies may be biased if the authors have strong a priori beliefs about the healthfulness of a food product ('white hat bias'). The extent to which each source of bias may affect the scientific literature has not been examined. We aimed to explore this question with research involving sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) as a test case, focusing on a period during which scientific consensus about the adverse health effects of SSB emerged from uncertainty. DESIGN: PubMed search of worldwide literature was used to identify articles related to SSB and health risks published between 2001 and 2013. Financial relationships and article conclusions were classified by independent groups of co-investigators. Associations were explored by Fischer's exact tests and regression analyses, controlling for covariates. RESULTS: A total of 133 articles published in English met inclusion criteria. The proportion of industry-related scientific studies decreased significantly with time, from approximately 30 % at the beginning of the study period to <5 % towards the end (P=0·003). A 'strong' or 'qualified' scientific conclusion was reached in 82 % of independent v. 7 % of industry-related SSB studies (P<0·001). Industry-related studies were overwhelmingly more likely to reach 'weak/null' conclusions compared with independent studies regarding the adverse effects of SSB consumption on health (OR=57·30, 95 % CI 7·12, 461·56). CONCLUSION: Industry-related research during a critical period appears biased to underestimate the adverse health effects of SSB, potentially delaying corrective public health action.
Entities:
Keywords:
Conflicts of interest; Diabetes; Nutrition; Obesity; Public health; Sugar-sweetened beverages
Authors: Matthias B Schulze; JoAnn E Manson; David S Ludwig; Graham A Colditz; Meir J Stampfer; Walter C Willett; Frank B Hu Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-08-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Cara B Ebbeling; Henry A Feldman; Stavroula K Osganian; Virginia R Chomitz; Sheila J Ellenbogen; David S Ludwig Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Maira Bes-Rastrollo; Matthias B Schulze; Miguel Ruiz-Canela; Miguel A Martinez-Gonzalez Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Peter von Philipsborn; Jan M Stratil; Jacob Burns; Laura K Busert; Lisa M Pfadenhauer; Stephanie Polus; Christina Holzapfel; Hans Hauner; Eva Rehfuess Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-06-12