Industry bias in randomized controlled trials in general and abdominal surgery

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 264, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 87-92

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

general and abdominal surgery; health care research; industry bias; industry sponsorship; medical devices; randomized controlled trial; science study; systematic review

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL SURGERY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICISM; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MEDICAL DEVICE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STATISTICAL BIAS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; ABDOMEN; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ECONOMICS; GENERAL SURGERY; INDUSTRY; PROCEDURES; SURGERY; UNITED STATES;

ABDOMEN; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM SURGICAL PROCEDURES; GENERAL SURGERY; HUMANS; INDUSTRY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84944339703     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001372     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2: e124
2. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 12: MR000033
3. Relman AS. The new medical-industrial complex. N Engl J Med. 1980; 303: 963-970
4. Relman AS. Dealing with conflicts of interest. N Engl JMed. 1984; 310: 1182-1183
5. Davidson RA. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med. 1986; 1: 155-158
6. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, et al. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomised trials. CMAJ. 2004; 170: 477-480
7. Ezzet KA. The prevalence of corporate funding in adult lower extremity research and its correlation with reported results. J Arthroplasty. 2003; 18: 138-145
8. Khan SN, Mermer MJ, Myers E, et al. The roles of funding source, clinical trial outcome, and quality of reporting in orthopedic surgery literature. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2008; 37: E205-E212; discussion E212
9. Leopold SS, WarmeWJ, Fritz Braunlich E, et al. Association between funding source and study outcome in orthopaedic research. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003; 415: 293-301
10. Lubowitz JH, Appleby D, Centeno JM, et al. The relationship between the outcome of studies of autologous chondrocyte implantation and the presence of commercial funding. Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35: 1809-1816
11. Lynch JR, Cunningham MR, Warme WJ, et al. 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: 1010-1018
12. Momeni A, Becker A, Bannasch H, et al. Association between research sponsorship and study outcome in plastic surgery literature. Ann Plast Surg. 2009; 63: 661-664
13. Okike K, Kocher MS, Mehlman CT, et al. Conflict of interest in orthopaedic research. An association between findings and funding in scientific presentations. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 608-613
14. Shah RV, Albert TJ, Bruegel-Sanchez V, et al. Industry support and correlation to study outcome for papers published in Spine. Spine. 2005; 30: 1099-1104
15. Sun GH, Houlton JJ, MacEachern MP, et al. Influence of study sponsorship on head and neck cancer randomised trial results. Head Neck. 2013; 35: 1515-1520
16. Yao F, Singer M, Rosenfeld RM. Randomised controlled trials in otolaryngology journals. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007; 137: 539-544
17. Lopez J, Prifogle E, Nyame TT, et al. The impact of conflicts of interest in plastic surgery: an analysis of acellular dermal matrix, implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014; 33: 1328-1334
18. Skinner JS. The Costly Paradox of Health-Care Technology. MIT Technology Review. 2013.Available at: www.technologyreview.com.AccessedMay 6, 2015
19. Available at: www.prisma-statement.org. Accessed May 6, 2015
20. Probst P, Grummich K, Ulrich A, et al. Association of industry sponsorship and positive outcome in randomised controlled trials in general and abdominal surgery: protocol for a systematic review and empirical study. Syst Rev. 2014; 3: 138
21. PROSPERO, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom. Available at: www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display- record.asp?IDCRD42014010802#.VKAQStNA. Accessed May 6, 2015
22. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed May 6, 2015
23. Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, et al. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 697-703
24. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013. Available at: http://www.Rproject.org. Accessed May 6, 2015
25. Bero LA. Why the Cochrane risk of bias tool should include funding source as a standard item. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 12: ED000075
26. Bero L, Oostvogel F, Bacchetti P, et al. Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others. PLoS Med. 2007; 4: e184
27. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003; 326: 1167-1170
28. Heres S, Davis J, Maino K, et al. Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-To-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Am J Psychiatry. 2006; 163: 185-194
29. McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J, et al. Reporting bias in medical researcha narrative review. Trials. 2010; 11: 37
30. Saito H, Gill CJ. How frequently do the results from completed US clinical trials enter the public domain?a statistical analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov database. PLoS One; 2014; 9: e101826
31. Diener MK, Knebel P, Kieser M, et al. Effectiveness of triclosan-coated PDS Plus versus uncoated PDS II sutures for prevention of surgical site infection after abdominal wall closure: the randomised controlled PROUD trial. Lancet. 2014; 384: 142-152
32. Bridoux V, Moutel G, Schwarz L, et al. Disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest in phase III surgical trials: survey of ten general surgery journals. World J Surg. 2014; 38: 2487-2493
33. Probst P, Hüttner FJ, Klaiber U, et al. Thirty years of disclosure of conflict of interest in surgery journals. Surgery. 2015; 157: 627-633
34. Lee K. Has the hunt for conflicts of interest gone too far?. No. BMJ. 2008; 336: 477
35. Stossel TP. Has the hunt for conflicts of interest gone too far?. Yes. BMJ. 2008; 336: 476