SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2009
Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, and impact in studies of influenza vaccines: systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 10 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Gendered interpretations of the causes of breast cancer: a structured review of migrant studies.BMC women's health · 2025Pooled it
- Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences: part 2: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on authorship, access to trial data, and trial registration and publication.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2010Pooled it
- Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2009Pooled it
- A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses.Current psychiatry reports · 2009Pooled it
- An introduction to the methodological corpus of systematic observation and its quality assessment.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Mapping trends and hotspots in research on global influenza vaccine hesitancy: A bibliometric analysis.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Is 'conflict of interest' a Misnomer? Managing interests in immunization research and evaluation.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Article
- The association between research funding status and clinical research papers' citation impact in Japan: A cross-sectional bibliometric study.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Sample size and number of outcome measures of veterinary randomised controlled trials of pharmaceutical interventions funded by different sources, a cross-sectional study.BMC veterinary research · 2017Article
- The Development of a Checklist to Enhance Methodological Quality in Intervention Programs.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Article
- Article
- Recommendations for a uniform assessment of publication bias related to funding source.BMC medical research methodology · 2013Article
- High reprint orders in medical journals and pharmaceutical industry funding: case-control study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2012Article
- What, in Fact, Is the Evidence That Vaccinating Healthcare Workers against Seasonal Influenza Protects Their Patients? A Critical Review.International journal of family medicine · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the relation between study concordance, take home message, funding, and dissemination of comparative studies assessing the effects of influenza vaccines.
designSystematic review without meta-analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and the web, without language restriction, for any studies comparing the effects of influenza vaccines against placebo or no intervention. Abstraction and assessment of quality of methods were carried out. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 259 primary studies (274 datasets). Higher quality studies were significantly more likely to show concordance between data presented and conclusions (odds ratio 16.35, 95% confidence interval 4.24 to 63.04) and less likely to favour effectiveness of vaccines (0.04, 0.02 to 0.09). Government funded studies were less likely to have conclusions favouring the vaccines (0.45, 0.26 to 0.90). A higher mean journal impact factor was associated with complete or partial industry funding compared with government or private funding and no funding (differences between means 5.04). Study size was not associated with concordance, content of take home message, funding, and study quality. Higher citation index factor was associated with partial or complete industry funding. This was sensitive to the exclusion from the analysis of studies with undeclared funding.
conclusionPublication in prestigious journals is associated with partial or total industry funding, and this association is not explained by study quality or size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.