Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12775614›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2003

Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.

Joel Lexchin, Lisa A Bero, Benjamin Djulbegovic, Otavio Clark

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 612 papers, 47 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
612citing papers in PubMed, 47 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

612 citing papers in PubMed, 47 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Adjunctive Ashwagandha (Nutrients · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. 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. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Joel LexchinSchool of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada M3J 1P3. joel.lexchin@utoronto.ca
Lisa A Bero
Benjamin Djulbegovic
Otavio Clark

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support.

methodsMedline (January 1966 to December 2002) and Embase (January 1980 to December 2002) searches were supplemented with material identified in the references and in the authors' personal files. Data were independently abstracted by three of the authors and disagreements were resolved by consensus.

results30 studies were included. Research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published than research funded by other sources. Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors (odds ratio 4.05; 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.51; 18 comparisons). None of the 13 studies that analysed methods reported that studies funded by industry was of poorer quality.

conclusionSystematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.

Indexed as

Research Support as TopicClinical Trials as TopicDrug IndustryFinancing, OrganizedPublishingResearchBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchEmpirical Approach

Identifiers

PMID12775614
PMCPMC156458

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.