Funding source and research report quality in nutrition practice-related research

PLoS ONE

Volumn 6, Issue 12, 2011, Pages

  Myers, Esther F ^a   Parrott, J Scott ^b   Cummins, Deborah S ^a   Splett, Patricia ^c  

^a American Dietetic Association   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY   (United States)

^c Splett and Associates   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FUNDING; GOVERNMENT; HOSPITAL; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; NUTRITION; PREDICTION; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UNIVERSITY; DIETETICS; DRUG INDUSTRY; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; INDUSTRY; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION; NUTRITIONAL SCIENCE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; STANDARD;

DIETETICS; DRUG INDUSTRY; FOUNDATIONS; HUMANS; INDUSTRY; NUTRITIONAL SCIENCES; PREJUDICE; PUBLICATIONS; QUALITY CONTROL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH REPORT; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL;

EID: 82855177029     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028437     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. The National Academies (2003) Policy and procedures on committee composition and balance and conflicts of interest for committees used in development of reports. May 12. Available: http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/index.html. Accessed 2010 Sep 9.
2. Humphrey GF, (1994) Scientific fraud: the McBride case-judgment. Med Sci Law 34: 299-306.
3. Whitely WP, Rennie D, Hafner AW, (1994) The scientific community's response to evidence of fraudulent publication. The Robert Slutsky case. JAMA 272: 170-173.
4. Sox HC, Rennie D, (2006) Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med 144: 609-613.
5. Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A, DeAngelis CD, (2005) Reporting conflicts of interest, financial aspects of research, and role of sponsors in funded studies. JAMA 294: 110-111.
6. Miller FG, Brody H, (2005) Viewpoint: professional integrity in industry-sponsored clinical trials. Acad Med 80: 899-904.
7. Davis JM, Chen N, Glick ID, (2008) Issues that may determine the outcome of antipsychotic trials: industry sponsorship and extrapyramidal side effect. Neuropsychopharmacology 33: 971-975.
8. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP, (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289: 454-465.
9. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O, (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326: 1167-1170.
10. Yao F, Singer M, Rosenfeld RM, (2007) Randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology journals. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 137: 539-544.
11. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori V, Schüemann H, et al. (2004) Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ 170: 477-480.
12. Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M, Wypij D, Ludwig DS, (2007) Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Med 4: e5.
13. Vartanian LR, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD, (2007) Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 97: 667-675.
14. Levine J, Gussow JD, Hastings D, Eccher A, (2003) Authors' financial relationships with the food and beverage industry and their published positions on the fat substitute olestra. Am J Public Health 93: 664669.
15. Brent R, Ehrlich GE, Gad SC, Caplan A, DeGregori T, et al. (2008) Scrutinizing industry-funded science: the crusade against conflicts of interest. New York, NY American Council on Science and Health.
16. Rowe S, Alexander N, Clydesdale FM, Applebaum RS, Atkinson S, et al. (2009) Funding food science and nutrition research: financial conflicts and scientific integrity. Am J Clin Nutr 89: 1285-1291.
17. Resnik DB, (2008) Hidden sources of private industry funding. Am J Bioeth 8: 60-1.
18. Public Library of Science (2009) PLoS policy on declaration and evaluation of competing interests. PLoS Medicine. 22 Available: http://www.plosmedicine.org/static/competing.action. Accessed 2011 Jan.
19. Coughlin SS, Soskolne C, Goodman KW, (1997) Case studies in public health ethics. Washington, DC American Public Health Association.
20. Martinson BC, Crain AL, Anderson MS, De Vries R, (2009) Institutions' expectations for researchers' self-funding, federal grant holding, and private industry involvement: manifold drivers of self-interest and researcher behavior. Acad Med 84: 1491-1499.
21. Gluud LL, (2006) Unravelling industry bias in clinical trials. Pain. 121: 175-176.
22. Barden J, Derry S, McQuay HJ, Moore RA, (2006) Bias from industry trial funding? A framework, a suggested approach, and a negative result. Pain 121: 207-218.
23. Okike K, Kocher MS, Mehlman CT, Bhandari M, (2007) Conflict of interest in orthopaedic research. An association between findings and funding in scientific presentations. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89: 608-613.
24. Nkansah N, Nguyen T, Iraninezhad H, Bero L, (2009) Randomized trials assessing calcium supplementation in healthy children: relationship between industry sponsorship and study outcomes. Public Health Nutr 12: 1931-1937.
25. Katan MB, (2007) Does industry sponsorship undermine the integrity of nutrition research? PLoS Med 4: e6.
26. Thomas O, Thabane L, Douketis J, Chu R, Westfall AO, et al. (2008) Industry funding and the reporting quality of large long-term weight loss trials. Int J Obes (Lond) 32: 1531-1536.
27. Lesser LI, (2009) Reducing potential bias in industry-funded nutrition research. Am J Clin Nutr 90: 699-700; author reply 700701.
28. Chung M, Balk EM, Ip S, Raman G, Yu WW, et al. (2009) Reporting of systematic reviews of micronutrients and health: a critical appraisal. Am J Clin Nutr 89: 1099-1113.
29. Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy-Westropp N, Kumar S, Grimmer KA, (2004) A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol 4: 22.
30. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP, (2007) Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 36: 666-676.
31. Lohr KN, (2004) Rating the strength of scientific evidence: relevance for quality improvement programs. Int J Qual Health Care 16: 9-18.
32. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D,; CONSORT Group (0251) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2010 Mar 24;7(3):e100.
33. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, et al. (2007) STROBE Initiative.Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. Oct 16;4(10):e297. Review. PMID:1794171534.
34. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, et al. (2007) STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. Oct 16;147(8):573-577. Erratum in: Ann Intern Med.2008 Jan 15;148(2): 168. PMID:17938396.
35. Strobe Statement: Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology website. Available: http://www.strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=strobe-home. Accessed 2011 Oct 12.
36. Armstrong R, Waters E, Moore L, Riggs E, Cuervo LG, et al. (2008) Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: advancing TREND and CONSORT. J Public Health (Oxf). Mar;30(1)103-109. Epub 2008 Jan 19. PMID:1820408637.
37. Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N, (2004) TREND Group.Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions:the TREND statement. Am J Public Health Mar;94(3):361-6. PMID:14998794.
38. American Dietetic Association (2010) ADA Evidence Analysis Manual. 11 Available: http://www.adaevidencelibrary.com/topic.cfm?cat=1155. Accessed 2011 Jan.
39. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, (2009) The PRISMA Group.N Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med. 3(3)e123-e130. Epub 2009 Jul 21. No abstract available. PMID:2160304540.
40. Prisma: Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses website. 12 Available: http://www.prisma-statement.org/statement.htm. Accessed 2011 Oct.
41. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, et al. (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting.Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. Apr 19;283(15):2008-2012. Review. PMID:1078967042.
42. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, et al. (2009) AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol Oct;62(10):1013-1020. Epub 2009 Feb 20. PMID:1923060639.
43. Livingston EH, Elliot A, Hynan L, Cao J, (2009) Effect size estimation: a necessary component of statistical analysis. Arch Surg 144: 706-712.
44. Clifford TJ, Barrowman NJ, Moher D, (2002) Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study. BMC Health Serv Res 2: 18.
45. Kleinbaum DG, Klein M, (2002) Logistic regression. 2nd ed. New York, NY:Springer-Verlag.
46. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, (2006) Using multivariate statistics. 5th ed. Boston, MA:Allyn & Bacon.
47. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2009) Guidance for industry: evidence-based review system for the scientific evaluation of health claims. November 30. 29 Available: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidance Documents/FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm073332.htm. Accessed 2011 Aug.
48. Cope MB, Allison DB, (2010) White hat bias: examples of its presence in obesity research and a call for renewed commitment to faithfulness in research reporting. Int J Obes (Lond) 34:84-88; discussion 83.
49. Barbui C, Cipriani A, (2007) Publication bias in systematic reviews. Arch Gen Psychiatry 64: 868.
50. Sharp RR, Scott AL, Landy DC, Kicklighter LA, (2008) Who is buying bioethics research? Am J Bioeth 8:54-58; discussion W51-52.
51. Schwartz RS, Curfman GD, Morrissey S, Drazen JM, (2008) Full disclosure and the funding of biomedical research. N Engl J Med 358: 1850-1851.
52. Elliott C, (2005) Should journals publish industry-funded bioethics articles? Lancet 366: 422-424.
53. Cook DM, Boyd EA, Grossmann C, Bero LA, (2007) Reporting science and conflicts of interest in the lay press. PLoS One 2: e1266.
54. Brand RA, (2009) Standards of reporting: the CONSORT, QUORUM, and STROBE guidelines. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467: 1393-1394.
55. Vandenbroucke JP, (2009) STREGA, STROBE, STARD, SQUIRE, MOOSE, PRISMA, GNOSIS, TREND, ORION, COREQ, QUOROM, REMARK.. and CONSORT: for whom does the guideline toll? J Clin Epidemiol 62: 594-596.
56. Verbeek J, (2008) Moose Consort Strobe and Miami Stard Remark or how can we improve the quality of reporting studies. Scand J Work Environ Health 34: 165-167.
57. Alvarez F, Meyer N, Gourraud PA, Paul C, (2009) CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals. Br J Dermatol 161: 1159-1165.
58. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D, (2005) The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials 2001. Explore (NY) 1: 40-45.