Industry influenced evidence production in collaborative research communities: A network analysis

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 65, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 535-543

  Dunn, Adam G ^a   Gallego, Blanca ^a   Coiera, Enrico ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Collaboration; Community structure; Industry influence; Network analysis; Randomized controlled trials; Research translation

Indexed keywords

ALENDRONIC ACID; ATORVASTATIN; CANDESARTAN; CELECOXIB; CLOPIDOGREL; ESCITALOPRAM; ESOMEPRAZOLE; EZETIMIBE; GLIMEPIRIDE; IRBESARTAN; LATANOPROST; MELOXICAM; MIRTAZAPINE; OLANZAPINE; PRESCRIPTION DRUG; RABEPRAZOLE; RISEDRONIC ACID; ROFECOXIB; ROSIGLITAZONE; ROSUVASTATIN; TELMISARTAN; TIOTROPIUM BROMIDE; VENLAFAXINE; DRUG;

ARTICLE; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG MANUFACTURE; DRUG RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; COMMUNITY CARE; COOPERATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; NONBIOLOGICAL MODEL; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PERSONNEL; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; COMMUNITY NETWORKS; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DRUG INDUSTRY; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MODELS, ORGANIZATIONAL; ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATION; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PUBLICATION BIAS; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH PERSONNEL;

EID: 84861175270     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.010     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2009;302:977-84.
2. Hochman M, McCormick D. Characteristics of published comparative effectiveness studies of medications. JAMA 2010;303: 951-8.
3. Bourgeois FT, Murthy S, Mandl KD. Outcome reporting among drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Ann Intern Med 2010;153: 158-66.
4. Yank V, Rennie D, Bero LA. Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2007;335:1202-5.
5. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. Impugning the integrity of medical science: the adverse effects of industry influence. JAMA 2008;299: 1833-5.
6. Angell M. Industry-sponsored clinical research: a broken system. JAMA 2008;300:1069-71.
7. Lundh A, Barbateskovic M, Hrobjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC. Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenuedcohort study. PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000354.
8. Lathyris DN, Patsopoulos NA, Salanti G, Ioannidis JPA. Industry sponsorship and selection of comparators in randomized clinical trials. Eur J Clin Invest 2010;40(2):172-82.
9. Mullard A. The long Avandia endgame. Lancet 2011;378:113.
10. Moynihan R. Rosiglitazone, marketing, and medical science. BMJ 2010;340:c1848.
11. Cohen D. Rosiglitazone: what went wrong? BMJ 2010;341:c4848.
12. Topol EJ. Failing the public healthdrofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1707-9.
13. Ross JS, Hill KP, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA 2008;299:1800-12.
14. Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC. The Clinical-Trials.gov results databasedupdate and key issues. N Engl J Med 2011;364:852-60.
15. Buchkowsky SS, Jewesson PJ. Industry sponsorship and authorship of clinical trials over 20 years. Ann Pharmacother 2004;38: 579-85.
16. Okike K, Kocher MS, Wei EX, Mehlman CT, Bhandari M. Accuracy of conflict-of-interest disclosures reported by physicians. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1466-74.
17. Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L, Blumenthal D, Chimonas SC, Cohen JJ, et al. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: a policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA 2006;295:429-33.
18. Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, Labianca G. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 2009;323:892-5.
19. Goh K-I, Oh E, Jeong H, Kahng B, Kim D. Classification of scale-free networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:12583-8.
20. Barabasi A-L. Scale-free networks: a decade and beyond. Science 2009;325:412-3.
21. Ravasz E, Barabási A-L. Hierarchical organization in complex networks. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 2003;67(2):026112.
22. Barabási A-L, Albert R. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 1999;286:509-12.
23. Leskovec J, Chakrabarti D, Kleinberg J, Faloutsos C, Ghahramani Z. Kronecker graphs: an approach to modeling networks. J Mach Learn Res 2010;11:985-1042.
24. Albert R, Jeong H, Barabasi A-L. The diameter of the World Wide Web. Nature 1999;401:130-1.
25. Schneider CM, Moreira AA, Andrade JS, Havlin S, Herrmann HJ. Mitigation of malicious attacks on networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;108:3838-41.
26. Albert R, Jeong H, Barabasi A-L. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature 2000;406:378-82.
27. Vespignani A. Predicting the behavior of techno-social systems. Science 2009;325:425-8.
28. Newman MEJ. Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 2001;64(1):016132.
29. Barabasi AL, Jeong H, Neda Z, Ravasz E, Schubert A, Vicsek T. Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Phys Stat Mech Appl 2002;311(3-4):590-614.
30. Moody J. The structure of a social science collaboration network: disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. Am Sociol Rev 2004;69(2): 213-38.
31. Newman M. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001;98:404-9.
32. Freeman LC. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Networks 1978;1(3):215-39.
33. Borgatti SP. Centrality and network flow. Soc Networks 2005;27(1): 55-71.
34. Borgatti SP, Everett MG. A graph-theoretic perspective on centrality. Soc Networks 2006;28(4):466-84.
35. Freeman LC. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 1977;40(1):35-41.
36. Newman M. Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004;101:5200-5.
37. Wang AT, McCoy CP, Murad MH, Montori VM. Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review. BMJ 2010;340: c1344.
38. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 2003;290:921-8.
39. Kjaergard L, Als-Nielsen B. Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ 2002;325:249.
40. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schunemann H, Sprague S, et al. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ 2004;170:477-80.
41. Koschützki D, Lehmann KA, Peeters L, Richter S, Tenfelde-Podehl D, Zlotowski O. Centrality indices. In: Brandes U, Erlebach T, editors. Network analysis: methodological foundations. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2005:16-61.
42. Valente T. Social networks and health: models, methods, and applications. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2010.
43. Newman MEJ, Girvan M. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 2004;69(2): 026113.
44. Girvan M, Newman MEJ. Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:7821-6.
45. Newman MEJ. Detecting community structure in networks. Eur Phys J B 2004;38:321-30.
46. Ahn Y-Y, Bagrow JP, Lehmann S. Link communities reveal multi-scale complexity in networks. Nature 2010;466:761-4.
47. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. Birds of a feather: homo-phily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 2001;27:415-44.
48. Dunn AG, Westbrook JI. Interpreting social network metrics in healthcare organisations: a review and guide to validating small networks. Soc Sci Med 2011;72(7):1064-8.
49. Rizos EC, Salanti G, Kontoyiannis DP, Ioannidis JPA. Homophily and co-occurrence patterns shape randomized trials agendas: illustration in antifungal agents. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64:830-42.
50. Evans JA. Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science 2008;321:395-9.
51. Newman MEJ. Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 2001;64(2): 025102.
52. Vázquez A. Growing network with local rules: preferential attachment, clustering hierarchy, and degree correlations. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 2003;67(5):056104.
53. Wagner CS, Leydesdorff L. Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Res Policy 2005;34(10):1608-18.
54. Lee K, Brownstein JS, Mills RG, Kohane IS. Does collocation inform the impact of collaboration? PLoS One 2010;5(12):e14279.
55. Yousefi-Nooraie R, Akbari-Kamrani M, Hanneman R, Etemadi A. Association between co-authorship network and scientific productivity and impact indicators in academic medical research centers: a case study in Iran. Health Res Policy Syst 2008;6(1):9.
56. Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B. Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 2008;322: 1259-62.
57. Lee K, Bacchetti P, Sim I. Publication of clinical trials supporting successful new drug applications: a literature analysis. PLoS Med 2008;5:e191.
58. Jüuni P, Nartey L, Reichenbach S, Sterchi R, Dieppe PA, Egger M. Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analy-sis. Lancet 2004;364:2021-9.
59. Hayes DF. Bevacizumab treatment for solid tumors. JAMA 2011;305: 506-8.
60. Brody H, Light DW. The inverse benefit law: how drug marketing undermines patient safety and public health. Am J Public Health 2011;101:399-404.