Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Collaboration between academics and industry in clinical trials: cross sectional study of publications and survey of lead academic authors

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Quality of dietary fat and genetic risk of type 2 diabetes: individual participant data meta-analysis

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Viagra for fetal growth restriction: STRIDER Consortium replies to letter by Symonds and Budge

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Challenges of independent assessment of potential harms of HPV vaccines

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

  3. Challenges of independent assessment of potential harms of HPV vaccines

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Network meta-analysis of antidepressants

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftKommentar/debatForskning

Vis graf over relationer

OBJECTIVES: To determine the role of academic authors, funders, and contract research organisations in industry funded trials of vaccines, drugs, and devices and to determine lead academic authors' experiences with industry funder collaborations.

DESIGN: Cross sectional analysis of trial publications and survey of lead academic authors.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: The most recent 200 phase III and IV trials of vaccines, drugs, and devices with full industry funding, at least one academic author, published in one of the top seven high impact general medical journals (New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine, and PLoS Medicine).

RESULTS: Employees of industry funders co-authored 173 (87%) of publications; 183 (92%) trials reported involvement of funders in design, and 167 (84%) reported involvement of academic authors. Data analysis involved the funder in 146 (73%) trials and the academic authors in 79 (40%). Trial reporting involved the funder in 173 (87%) trials and academic authors in 197 (99%). Contract research organisations were involved in the reporting of 123 (62%) trials.Eighty (40%) of 200 lead academic authors responded to the survey. Twenty nine (33%) of the 80 responders reported that academics had final say on the design. Ten responders described involvement of an unnamed funder and/or contract research organisation employee in the data analysis and/or reporting. Most academic authors found the collaboration with industry funder beneficial, but 3 (4%) experienced delay in publication due to the industry funder and 9 (11%) reported disagreements with the industry funder, mostly concerning trial design and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS: Industry employees and academic authors are involved in the design, conduct, and reporting of most industry funded trials in high impact journals. However, data analysis is often conducted without academic involvement. Academics view the collaboration as beneficial, but some report loss of academic freedom.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftBMJ
Vol/bind363
Sider (fra-til)k3654
ISSN1756-1833
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 3 okt. 2018

ID: 55592871