Healthy Skepticism Library item: 3337

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Journal Article

Davidson RA.
Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials.
J Gen Intern Med 1986 May-Jun; 1:(3):155-8

Abstract:

Because of recent concerns about conflicts of interest and published research, the author analyzed 107 controlled clinical trials. Studies were classified as favoring either a new therapy or a traditional therapy, and as being supported by a pharmaceutical manufacturer or as being generally supported. Seventy-one per cent of the trials favored new therapies; 43% of these were funded by pharmaceutical firms. Of the 31 trials favoring traditional therapy, only four (13%) were supported by a pharmaceutical firm. There was a statistically significant association between the source of funding and the outcome of the study (p = 0.002). Few trials supported by pharmaceutical manufacturers favored traditional therapy; some reasons for this finding may include selection of drugs likely to be proven efficacious, Type II errors (false-negative studies), and fear of discontinuation of funding should such studies be submitted. Important clinical information may be lost if negative studies are not published.

Keywords:
*analytic survey/clinical trials/publication bias/drug company sponsored research/reporting of results/INFLUENCE OF PROMOTION: OUTCOME OF CLINICAL TRIALS/PROMOTION DISGUISED: CLINICAL TRIALS/SPONSORSHIP: RESEARCH Biomedical Research* Clinical Trials/economics* Drug Industry/economics* Editorial Policies Research Support* Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.