Association of industry sponsorship and positive outcome in randomised controlled trials in general and abdominal surgery: Protocol for a systematic review and empirical study

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Probst, Pascal ^a,b   Grummich, Kathrin ^b   Ulrich, Alexis ^a   Büchler, Markus W ^a   Knebel, Phillip ^a,b   Diener, Markus K ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

General and abdominal surgery; Health care research; Industry bias; Industry sponsorship; Medical devices; Randomised controlled trial; Science study; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL SURGERY; ARTICLE; DATA EXTRACTION; FUNDING; HUMAN; INDUSTRY SPONSORSHIP; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; METHODOLOGY; MODEL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLE SIZE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); ABDOMEN; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GENERAL SURGERY; INDUSTRY; LITERATURE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SURGERY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ABDOMEN; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; GENERAL SURGERY; HUMANS; INDUSTRY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84927949300     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-138     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Relman AS. The new medical-industrial complex. N Engl J Med 1980, 303:963-970. 10.1056/NEJM198010233031703, 7412851.
2. Relman AS. Dealing with conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med 1984, 310(18):1182-1183. 10.1056/NEJM198405033101809, 6709012.
3. Davidson RA. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med 1986, 1(3):155-158. 10.1007/BF02602327, 3772583.
4. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 12:MR000033.
5. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schünemann H, Sprague S, Mears D, Schemitsch EH, Heels-Ansdell D, Devereaux PJ. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomised trials. CMAJ 2004, 170(4):477-480. 332713, 14970094.
6. Ezzet KA. The prevalence of corporate funding in adult lower extremity research and its correlation with reported results. J Arthroplasty 2003, 18(Suppl 1):138-145.
7. Khan SN, Mermer MJ, Myers E, Sandhu HS. The roles of funding source, clinical trial outcome, and quality of reporting in orthopedic surgery literature. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2008, 37(12):E205-E212. discussion E212.
8. Leopold SS, Warme WJ, Fritz Braunlich E, Shott S. Association between funding source and study outcome in orthopaedic research. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003, 415:293-301.
9. Lubowitz JH, Appleby D, Centeno JM, Woolf SK, Reid JB. The relationship between the outcome of studies of autologous chondrocyte implantation and the presence of commercial funding. Am J Sports Med 2007, 35(11):1809-1816. 10.1177/0363546507304720, 17641106.
10. Lynch JR, Cunningham MR, Warme WJ, Schaad DC, Wolf FM, Leopold SS. Commercially funded and United States based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89(5):1010-1018. 10.2106/JBJS.F.01152, 17473138.
11. Momeni A, Becker A, Bannasch H, Antes G, Blümle A, Stark GB. Association between research sponsorship and study outcome in plastic surgery literature. Ann Plast Surg 2009, 63(6):661-664. 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181951917, 19887933.
12. Okike K, Kocher MS, Mehlman CT, Bhandari M. Conflict of interest in orthopaedic research. An association between findings and funding in scientific presentations. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89(3):608-613. 10.2106/JBJS.F.00994, 17332110.
13. Shah RV, Albert TJ, Bruegel-Sanchez V, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS, Grauer JN. Industry support and correlation to study outcome for papers published in Spine. Spine 2005, 30:1099-1104. 10.1097/01.brs.0000161004.15308.b4, 15864166.
14. Sun GH, Houlton JJ, MacEachern MP, Bradford CR, Hayward RA. Influence of study sponsorship on head and neck cancer randomised trial results. Head Neck 2013, 35(10):1515-1520.
15. Yao F, Singer M, Rosenfeld RM. Randomised controlled trials in otolaryngology journals. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007, 137(4):539-544. 10.1016/j.otohns.2007.07.018, 17903567.
16. Higgins JPT., Cochrane Handbook Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration, Available from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. (Accessed 30.10.2014), Cochrane Handbook.
17. Kable AK, Pich J, Maslin-Prothero SE. A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: a 12 step guideline for authors. Nurse Educ Today 2012, 32(8):878-886. 10.1016/j.nedt.2012.02.022, 22633885.
18. Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59(7):697-703. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.010, 16765272.
19. R Core Team. R A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2013, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, http://www.R-project.org. (accessed 30.10.2014), R Core Team. R.
20. Roseman M, Turner EH, Lexchin J, Coyne JC, Bero LA, Thombs BD. Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study. BMJ 2012, 345:e5155. 10.1136/bmj.e5155, 3423635, 22906823.