Influence of study sponsorship on head and neck cancer randomized trial results

Head and Neck

Volumn 35, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 1515-1520

  Sun, Gordon H ^a,b,c   Houlton, Jeffrey J ^d   MacEachern, Mark P ^a   Bradford, Carol R ^c   Hayward, Rodney A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b VA ANN ARBOR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

bias; bibliometric analysis; conflict of interest; Head and neck neoplasms; research sponsorship

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DATA BASE; EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY; GOVERNMENT; HEAD AND NECK CANCER; HUMAN; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; METHODOLOGY; NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC);

BIAS; BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; HEAD AND NECK NEOPLASMS; RESEARCH SPONSORSHIP;

DRUG INDUSTRY; FEMALE; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; HEAD AND NECK NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; MALE; ORGANIZATIONS, NONPROFIT; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84884882731     PISSN: 10433074     EISSN: 10970347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hed.23151     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bodenheimer T,. Uneasy alliance-clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1539-1544.
2. Dorsey ER, de Roulet J, Thompson JP, et al. Funding of US biomedical research, 2003-2008. JAMA 2010; 303: 137-143.
3. 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: 921-928.
4. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, et al. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ 2004; 170: 477-480.
5. Davidson RA,. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med 1986; 1: 155-158.
6. JâŠ̃rgensen AW, Maric KL, Tendal B, Faurschou A, GâŠ̃tzsche PC,. Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: differences in methodological quality and conclusions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008; 8: 60.
7. Chan AW, Krleza-Jeric̈ K, Schmid I, Altman DG,. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ 2004; 171: 735-740.
8. Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Debalini MG, Rivetti A, Demicheli V,. Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, and impact in studies of influenza vaccines: systematic review. BMJ 2009; 338: b354.
9. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1-12.
10. Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 2000; 356: 635-638.
11. Clifford TJ, Barrowman NJ, Moher D,. Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study. BMC Health Serv Res 2002; 2: 18.
12. Lundh A, Barbateskovic M, Hrõbjartsson A, GâŠ̃ tzsche PC,. Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue-cohort study. PLoS Med 2010; 7: e1000354.
13. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP,. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003; 289: 454-465.
14. Booth CM, Cescon DW, Wang L, Tannock IF, Krzyzanowska MK,. Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 5458-5464.
15. Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, Nelson W, Bennett CL,. Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 1999; 282: 1453-1457.
16. Knox KS, Adams JR, Djulbegovic B, Stinson TJ, Tomor C, Bennet CL,. Reporting and dissemination of industry versus non-profit sponsored economic analyses of six novel drugs used in oncology. Ann Oncol 2000; 11: 1591-1595.
17. Moja PL, Moschetti I, D'Amico R,. Outcome reporting bias in government-funded RCTs. CMAJ 2005; 172: 857; author reply 857.
18. Angell M, Utiger RD, Wood AJ,. Disclosure of authors' conflicts of interest: a follow-up. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 586-587.
19. Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS,. Conflict of interest policies in science and medical journals: editorial practices and author disclosures. Sci Eng Ethics 2001; 7: 205-218.
20. Franzoni C, Scellato G, Stephan P,. Science policy. Changing incentives to publish. Science 2011; 333: 702-703.
21. Glickman SW, McHutchison JG, Peterson ED, et al. Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 816-823.
22. McGeary M, Burstein M,. Sources of cancer research funding in the United States. Available at: http://iom.edu/∼/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Disease/ NCPF/Fund.pdf. Accessed June 19, 2012.
23. [No authors listed] A cure for cancer research. Nat Med 2010; 16: 829.
24. Jagsi R, Sheets N, Jankovic A, Motomura AR, Amarnath S, Ubel PA,. Frequency, nature, effects, and correlates of conflicts of interest in published clinical cancer research. Cancer 2009; 115: 2783-2791.
25. Evans J,. High risk NIH grants announced. Available at: http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55023/. Accessed June 19, 2012.
26. Levinsky NG,. Nonfinancial conflicts of interest in research. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 759-761.