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

Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Heterogeneity of treatment effect of prophylactic pantoprazole in adult ICU patients: a post hoc analysis of the SUP-ICU trial

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Noninvasive respiratory support in the hypoxaemic peri-operative/periprocedural patient: a joint ESA/ESICM guideline

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Diagnosis of severe respiratory infections in immunocompromised patients

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Oxygen toxicity in major emergency surgery-anything new?

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  5. Expert statement on the ICU management of patients with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Coitus is not recommended - a systematic review

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

  2. One-way SMS and healthcare outcomes in Africa: Systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analysis

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Letter to the editor

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftKommentar/debatForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

PURPOSE: Clinical research is widely sponsored by drug and device companies. We investigated whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review.

METHODS: In this update we searched MEDLINE and Embase (2010 to February 2015), Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). We included empirical studies that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. Two assessors included papers, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether conclusions agreed with results.

RESULTS: We included 27 additional papers in this update (review now includes 75 papers). Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI 1.17-1.37), no difference in harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI 0.64-2.93) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI 1.19-1.51) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in reporting of data and heterogeneity of results. Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI 1.05-1.50), compared with non-industry sponsored studies.

CONCLUSIONS: Drug and device studies sponsored by manufacturing companies have more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than studies sponsored by other sources.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftIntensive Care Medicine
Vol/bind44
Udgave nummer10
Sider (fra-til)1603-1612
ISSN0342-4642
DOI
StatusUdgivet - okt. 2018

ID: 55381719