|
Teresa
Binstock
Researcher in Developmental & Behavioral
Neuroanatomy
November 08, 2009
Conflicts
of interest bias conclusions in peer-reviewed studies. As a JAMA
article warned, "Readers should carefully evaluate whether
conclusions in randomized trials are supported by data." (3)
Consider some quotes from peer-reviewed journals. Each of
citations 1-8 is free online.
"Financial
relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and
academic institutions are widespread. Conflicts of interest
arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in
important ways." (1)
"Adjusted analyses showed
that trials funded by for-profit organizations were significantly
more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of
choice... compared with trials funded by nonprofit organizations."
(2)
"Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit
organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of
trial results. Readers should carefully evaluate whether
conclusions in randomized trials are supported by data."
(2)
"COI [conflict of interest] is widespread among
the authors of published manuscripts and these authors are more
likely to present positive findings. (3)
"Conclusion:
Abstracts published in high impact factor medical journals
underreport harm, even when harm is reported in the main body of
the article." (4)
"Authors' conclusions in
randomised clinical trials significantly favoured experimental
interventions if financial competing interests were declared."
(5)
"Randomized controlled drug trials (n = 314)
published in five general interest medical journals over a 2-year
period were reviewed. Study outcome was classified as positive or
negative. Support was classified as pharmaceutical industry or
non-industry. .. Positive findings were found in 77% of studies,
negative findings in 20% and an uncertain outcome in 3%. Support
from commercial sources was found in 68% of trials. Negative
findings were found in 13% of industry-supported studies and in
35% of non-industry-supported studies... Conclusions. An
association was found between the source of study support and the
published outcome..." (6)
"Our review reveals
important heterogeneity and variability in the reporting of
harm-related results in publications of RCTs." [randomized
controlled trials] (8)
"Trial reports often
failed to provide details on how adverse drug reactions were
defined or recorded. The absence of such methodological
information makes comparative evaluation of adverse reaction rates
potentially unreliable." (8)
Additional
information about science and ethics can be found at Sheldon
Krimsky's Tufts University url (9)
References:
1.
Scope and impact of financial
conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic
review
Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP.
Department
of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine
JAMA. 2003 Jan
22-29;289(4):454-65.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/289/4/454
2.
Association of funding and conclusions
in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or
adverse events?
Als-Nielsen et al.
JAMA.
2003 Aug
20;290(7):921-8.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/7/921
3.
Relationship between conflicts of
interest and research results
Friedman LS,
Richter ED et al
J Gen Intern Med. 2004
Jan;19(1):51-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1494677/?tool=pubmed
4.
Abstracts in high profile journals
often fail to report harm
Bernal-Delgado E,
Fisher ES.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Mar
27;8:14.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/8/14
5.
Association between competing
interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of
randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ
Kjaergard
LL, Als-Nielsen B.
BMJ. 2002 Aug
3;325(7358):249.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint_abr/325/7358/249
6.
The association between funding by
commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled
drug trials
Yaphe J et al.
Fam Pract. 2001
Dec;18(6):565-8.
http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/18/6/565
7.
Reporting of safety results in
published reports of randomized controlled trials
Pitrou
I et al.
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Oct
26;169(19):1756-61
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/169/19/1756
8.
Reporting of adverse drug reactions in
randomised controlled trials - a systematic survey
Loke
YK, Derry S.
BMC Clin Pharmacol.
2001;1:3
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6904/1/3
9.
Selected Publications in Science &
Ethics
http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/sciethics.htm
Contact
Teresa Binstock by email
Return
to index of essays by Teresa Binstock
|