Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12153921›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2002

Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ.

Lise L Kjaergard, Bodil Als-Nielsen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 112 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
112citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

112 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. A systematic review with meta-analysis of the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in cancer therapy-induced oral mucositis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2011
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Bicyclol for chronic hepatitis C.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007
    Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Superficial heat or cold for low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2006
    Pooled it

52 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lise L KjaergardCochrane Hepatobiliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Department 7102, H:S Rigshospitalet, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Kjaergard@ctu.rh.dk
Bodil Als-Nielsen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the association between competing interests and authors' conclusions in randomised clinical trials.

designEpidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ from January 1997 to June 2001. Financial competing interests were defined as funding by for profit organisations and other competing interests as personal, academic, or political. STUDIES: 159 trials from 12 medical specialties.

main outcome measuresAuthors' conclusions defined as interpretation of extent to which overall results favoured experimental intervention. Conclusions appraised on 6 point scale; higher scores favour experimental intervention.

resultsAuthors' conclusions were significantly more positive towards the experimental intervention in trials funded by for profit organisations alone compared with trials without competing interests (mean difference 0.48 (SE 0.13), P=0.014), trials funded by both for profit and non-profit organisations (0.30 (SE 0.10), P=0.003), and trials with other competing interests (0.45 (SE 0.13), P=0.006). Other competing interests and funding from both for profit and non-profit organisations were not significantly associated with authors' conclusions. The association between financial competing interests and authors' conclusions was not explained by methodological quality, statistical power, type of experimental intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological), type of control intervention (for example, placebo or active drug), or medical specialty.

conclusionsAuthors' conclusions in randomised clinical trials significantly favoured experimental interventions if financial competing interests were declared. Other competing interests were not significantly associated with authors' conclusions.

Indexed as

Analysis of VarianceConflict of InterestData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansPeriodicals as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Support as TopicBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchEmpirical Approach

Identifiers

PMID12153921
PMCPMC117638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.