Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18024482›Full record

ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2007

Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study.

Veronica Yank, Drummond Rennie, Lisa A Bero

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 17 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Systematic Review: A Method at Risk for Being Corrupted.American journal of public health · 2017
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Guideline
  16. Guideline
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Is Meat Industry Affiliation Associated With Study Conclusion in Nutrition Research? A Meta-Research Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Review
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Veronica YankStanford University, Stanford Medical Group, Stanford, CA 94305-5765, USA. vyank@stanford.edu
Drummond Rennie
Lisa A Bero

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether financial ties to one drug company are associated with favourable results or conclusions in meta-analyses on antihypertensive drugs.

designRetrospective cohort study.

settingMeta-analyses published up to December 2004 that were not duplicates and evaluated the effects of antihypertensive drugs compared with any comparator on clinical end points in adults. Financial ties were categorised as one drug company compared with all others.

main outcome measuresThe main outcomes were the results and conclusions of meta-analyses, with both outcomes separately categorised as being favourable or not favourable towards the study drug. We also collected data on characteristics of meta-analyses that the literature suggested might be associated with favourable results or conclusions.

results124 meta-analyses were included in the study, 49 (40%) of which had financial ties to one drug company. On univariate logistic regression analyses, meta-analyses of better methodological quality were more likely to have favourable results (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.27). Although financial ties to one drug company were not associated with favourable results, such ties constituted the only characteristic significantly associated with favourable conclusions (4.09, 1.30 to 12.83). When controlling for other characteristics of meta-analyses in multiple logistic regression analyses, meta-analyses that had financial ties to one drug company remained more likely to report favourable conclusions (5.11, 1.54 to 16.92).

conclusionMeta-analyses on antihypertensive drugs and with financial ties to one drug company are not associated with favourable results but are associated with favourable conclusions.

Indexed as

Interprofessional RelationsMeta-Analysis as TopicAntihypertensive AgentsCohort StudiesDrug IndustryHumansResearch Support as TopicRetrospective StudiesAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID18024482
PMCPMC2128658

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.