ReviewCurrent oncology reports2001
Conflict of interest in industry-sponsored economic evaluations: real or imagined?
Review in Current oncology reports, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of the quality and scope of decision modelling studies in child oral health research.BMC oral health · 2021Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of vaccines in Canada: A systematic review.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2016Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of the Level of Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Medical Devices: The Example of Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Awareness and perception of pharmacy researchers about conflict of interest: A study from the MENA region.Journal of applied pharmaceutical science · 2022Article
- Characteristics of Cost-effectiveness Studies for Oncology Drugs Approved in the United States From 2015-2020.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluation Studies Developed in Brazil from 1980 to 2013.Frontiers in public health · 2018Article
- Targeted therapies: Manufacturer sponsorship bias in economic analyses matters.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2012Article
- Burden of disease and economic evaluation of healthcare interventions: are we investigating what really matters?BMC health services research · 2011Article
- Transparency of economic evaluations of health technologies.PharmacoEconomics · 2008Article
- Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--2.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes ResearchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As industry sponsorship of pharmacoeconomic studies has increased, concerns have been raised about potential biases, owing to the conflicts of interest that this sponsorship creates. A review of the literature indicates that there are some causes for concern, given the fact that most pharmacoeconomic studies report positive findings for the sponsor's drug. However, a more detailed analysis suggests that, although the methodologic quality of some published studies may be poor, the main reason for positive results is that companies only sponsor economic studies where a positive outcome is likely. Therefore, it is concluded that the best way of dealing with perceptions of sponsorship bias is not increased rhetoric, but rather increased public funding for economic evaluation of medicines, thereby creating a true mixed economy for research funding in this field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11489241What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.