Is funding source related to study reporting quality in obesity or nutrition randomized control trials in top-tier medical journals

International Journal of Obesity

Volumn 36, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 977-981

  Kaiser, K A ^a   Cofield, S S ^a   Fontaine, K R ^b   Glasser, S P ^c   Thabane, L ^d   Chu, R ^d   Ambrale, S ^e   Dwary, A D ^a   Kumar, A ^a   Nayyar, G ^a   Affuso, O ^a   Beasley, M ^a   Allison, D B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c University of Alabama at Birmingham   (United States)

^d MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e NEW YORK MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

research funding; research integrity; research reporting

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; EDITOR; FUNDING; HUMAN; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; NUTRITION; OBESITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; OBESITY; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC;

EID: 84863721175     PISSN: 03070565     EISSN: 14765497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2011.207     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Moher D. CONSORT: an evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. JAMA 1998; 279: 1489-1491.
2. Mills EJ, Wu P, Gagnier J, Devereaux PJ. The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. Contemp Clin Trials 2005; 26: 480-487.
3. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001; 285: 1992-1995.
4. Allison DB. The antidote to bias in research. Science 2009; 326: 522-523.
5. Allison DB, Cope MB. Randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results. JAMA 2010; 304: 965.
6. Cope MB, Allison DB. White hat bias: a threat to the integrity of scientific reporting. Acta Paediatr 2010; 99: 1615-1617.
7. Cope MB, Allison DB. White hat bias: examples of its presence in obesity research and a call for renewed commitment to faithfulness in research reporting. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2010; 34: 84-88.
8. Rennie D. CONSORT revised-improving the reporting of randomized trials. JAMA 2001; 285: 2006-2007.
9. Thomas O, Thabane L, Douketis J, Chu R, Westfall AO, Allison DB. Industry funding and the reporting quality of large long-term weight loss trials. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2008; 32: 1531-1536.
10. Chalmers TC, Smith Jr H, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 1981; 2: 31-49.
11. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297-334.
12. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 1965; 52: 591-611.
13. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence, 47, 02-E016, 1-11. US Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, 2002. (evidence report).
14. Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbe KA. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 255-265.
15. Thabane L, Chu R, Cuddy K, Douketis J. What is the quality of reporting in weight loss intervention studies? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2007; 31: 1554-1559.
16. Myers JP, vom Saal FS, Akingbemi BT, Arizono K, Belcher S, Colborn T et al. Why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: the case of bisphenol A. Environ Health Perspect 2009; 117: 309-315.
17. Klayman J, Ha Y-W. Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychol Rev 1987; 94: 211-228.
18. Klaczynski PA, Narasimham G. Development of scientific reasoning biases: Cognitive versus ego-protective explanations. Dev Psychol 1998; 34: 175-187.
19. Hart W, Albarracin D, Eagly AH, Brechan I, Lindberg MJ, Merrill L. Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychol Bull 2009; 135: 555-588.