Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: A qualitative systematic review

Contemporary Clinical Trials

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 109-113

  Sismondo, Sergio ^a  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bias; Industry funding; Pharmaceutical companies; Sponsorship

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIC AGENT; CLOZAPINE; NEUROLEPTIC AGENT; OLANZAPINE; QUETIAPINE; RISPERIDONE; SEROTONIN UPTAKE INHIBITOR;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

DRUG INDUSTRY; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC;

EID: 39049096171     PISSN: 15517144     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2007.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Baird P. Getting it right: industry sponsorship and medical research. Can Med Assoc J 168 10 (May 13 2003) 1267-1269
2. Bekelman J.E., Li Y., and Gross C.P. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289 4 (2003) 454-469
3. Jadad A.R., Moore R.A., Carroll D., et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control. Clin. Trials 17 (1996) 1-12
4. Lexchin J., Bero L.A., Djulbegovic B., and Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326 (2003) 1167-1170
5. Sismondo S. How pharmaceutical company funding affects clinical trial results: causal structures and responses. Soc Sci Med in press.
6. Finucane T.C.B. Association of funding and findings of pharmaceutical research at a meeting of a medical professional society. JAMA 117 (2004) 842-845
7. Fries J., and Krishnan E. Equipoise, design bias, and randomized controlled trials: the elusive ethics of new drug development. Arthritis Res Study 6 (2004) 250-255
8. Friedman L.S., and Richter E.D. Relationship between conflict of interest and research results. J Gen Intern Med 19 (2004) 51
9. Ridker P.M., and Torres J. Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000-2005. JAMA. 295 (2006) 2270-2276
10. Als-Nielson B. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?. JAMA 290 7 (2003) 921-928
11. Kelly R.E., Cohen L.J., Semple R.J., et al. Relationship between drug company funding and outcomes of clinical psychiatric research. Psychol Med 36 (2006) 1647-1656
12. Heres S., Davis J., Maino K.J.E., Kissling W., and Leucht S. Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Am J Psychiatry. 163 (2006) 185-194
13. Montgomery J., Byerly M., Carmody T., et al. An analysis of the effect of funding source in randomized clinical trials of second generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia. Control Clin Trials 25 (2004) 598-612
14. Moncrieff J. Clozapine v. conventional antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a re-examination. Br J Psychiatry 183 (2003) 161-166
15. Procyshyn R.M., Chau A., Fortin P., and Jenkins W. Prevalence and outcomes of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials involving clozapine, risperidone, or olanzapine. Can J Psychiatry 49 (2004) 601-606
16. Perlis R.H., Perlis C.S., Wu Y., Hwang C., Joseph M., and Nierenberg A. Industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest in the reporting of clinical trials in psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry. 162 (2005) 1957-1960
17. Liss H. Publication bias in the pulmonary/allergy literature: effect of pharmaceutical company sponsorship. Israel Med Assoc J. 8 (2005) 451-454
18. Baker C.B., Johnsrud M.T., Crismon M.L., Rosenheck R.A., and Woods S.W. Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants. Br J Psychiatry. 183 (2003) 498-506
19. Bell C.M., Urbach D.R., Ray J.G., et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ. 332 699-703 (2006) 699
20. Beutels P. Potential conflicts of interest in vaccine economics research: a commentary with a case study of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination. Vaccine 22 (2004) 3312-3322
21. Miners A., Garau M., Fidan D., and Fischer A.J. Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study. BMJ 330 (2005) 65
22. Perlis C.S., Harwood M., and Perlis R.H. Extent and impact of industry sponsorship conflicts of interest in dermatology research. J Am Acad Dermatol 52 (2005) 967-971
23. Bhandari M., Busse J.W., Jackowski D., et al. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. Can Med Assoc J 170 4 (2004) 477-480
24. Shah R., Albert T., Bruegel-Sanchez V., Vaccaro A., Hilibrand A., and Grauer J. Industry support and correlation to study outcome for papers published in spine. Spine 30 (2005) 1099-1104
25. Jørgensen A.W., Hilden J., and Gøtzsche P.C. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 333 (2006) 782
26. Brown J.R. Money, method and medical research. Episteme 1 (2004) 49-59
27. Barden J., Derry S., McQuay H., and Moore A. Bias from industry trial funding? A framework, a suggested approach, and a negative result. Pain 121 (2006) 207-218
28. Rochon P.A., Gurwitz J.H., Simms R.W., et al. A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med 154 (1994) 157-163
29. Tulikangas P., Ayers A., and Sullivan D.M. A meta-analysis comparing trials of antimuscarinic medications funded by industry or not. Br J Urol Int 98 (2006) 377-380
30. Brown A., Kraft D., Schmitz S.M., et al. Association of industry sponsorship to published outcomes in gastrointestinal clinical research. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 4 12 (2006) 1445-1451