ArticleCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2004
Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials.
Article in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 168 papers, 47 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
168 citing papers in PubMed, 47 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Negative-pressure wound therapy in thoracic and abdominal surgery: meta-analysis of randomized trials.BJS open · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review of sample size calculations and reporting in randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology over a 20-year period.International ophthalmology · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy, safety, and potential industry bias in using deoxycholic acid for submental fat reduction ‒ A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2023Pooled it
- Systemic therapies for preventing or treating aromatase inhibitor-induced musculoskeletal symptoms in early breast cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Assessment of Risk of Bias in Osteosarcoma and Ewing's Sarcoma Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Pooled it
- Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeting therapy for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids for dry eye disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Antidepressants plus benzodiazepines for adults with major depression.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Benzodiazepines versus placebo for panic disorder in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pharmacological interventions for apathy in Alzheimer's disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Antidepressants versus placebo for panic disorder in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Thrombopoietin receptor agonists for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia in patients with solid tumours.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Certolizumab pegol (CDP870) for rheumatoid arthritis in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- The Association between Sulfonylurea Use and All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality: A Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.PLoS medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Polyurethane on titanium unconstrained disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc disease: a review of level I-II randomized clinical trials including clinical outcomes.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2015Pooled it
- Electromagnetic therapy for treating venous leg ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Adhesion prevention agents for gynaecological surgery: an overview of Cochrane reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Azapirones versus placebo for panic disorder in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
108 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConflicting reports exist in the medical literature regarding the association between industry funding and published research findings. In this study, we examine the association between industry funding and the statistical significance of results in recently published medical and surgical trials.
methodsWe examined a consecutive series of 332 randomized trials published between January 1999 and June 2001 in 8 leading surgical journals and 5 medical journals. Each eligible study was independently reviewed for methodological quality using a 21-point index with 5 domains: randomization, outcomes, eligibility criteria, interventions and statistical issues. Our primary analysis included studies that explicitly identified the primary outcome and reported it as statistically significant. For studies that did not explicitly identify a primary outcome, we defined a "positive" study as one with at least 1 statistically significant outcome measure. We used multivariable regression analysis to determine whether there was an association between reported industry funding and trial results, while controlling for study quality and sample size.
resultsAmong the 332 randomized trials, there were 158 drug trials, 87 surgical trials and 87 trials of other therapies. In 122 (37%) of the trials, authors declared industry funding. An unadjusted analysis of this sample of trials revealed that industry funding was associated with a statistically significant result in favour of the new industry product (odds ratio [OR] 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-3.5). The association remained significant after adjustment for study quality and sample size (adjusted OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-3.0). There was a nonsignificant difference between surgical trials (OR 8.0, 95% CI 1.1-53.2) and drug trials (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.8), both of which were likely to have a pro-industry result (relative OR 5.0, 95% CI 0.7-37.5, p = 0.14).
interpretationIndustry-funded trials are more likely to be associated with statistically significant pro-industry findings, both in medical trials and surgical interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
14970094PMC332713What 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.