Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20467553›Full record

SynthesisDeutsches Arzteblatt international2010

The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 1: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials.

Gisela Schott, Henry Pachl, Ulrich Limbach, Ursula Gundert-Remy, Wolf-Dieter Ludwig, Klaus Lieb

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

Synthesis in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Denosumab versus bisphosphonates for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Janus kinase-1 and Janus kinase-2 inhibitors for treating myelofibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  8. Disclosing conflicts of interest in patient decision aids.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution.

Gisela SchottArzneimittelkommission der deutschen Arzteschaft, Berlin, Germany. gisela.schott@akdae.de
Henry Pachl
Ulrich Limbach
Ursula Gundert-Remy
Wolf-Dieter Ludwig
Klaus Lieb
Arzneimittelkommission der deutschen Ärzteschaft

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, a number of studies have shown that clinical drug trials financed by pharmaceutical companies yield favorable results for company products more often than independent trials do. Moreover, pharmaceutical companies have been found to influence drug trials in various ways. This paper provides an overview of the findings of current, systematic studies on this topic.

methodsPublications retrieved from a systematic Medline search on this topic from 1 November 2002 to 16 December 2009 were independently evaluated and selected by two of the authors. These publications were supplemented by further ones found in their references sections.

results57 publications were included for evaluation in Parts 1 and 2 of this article. Published drug trials that were financed by pharmaceutical companies, or whose authors declared a financial conflict of interest, were found to yield favorable results for the drug manufacturer more frequently than independently financed trials whose authors had no such conflicts. The results were also interpreted favorably more often than in independently financed trials. Furthermore, there was evidence that pharmaceutical companies influenced study protocols in a way that was favorable to themselves. The methodological quality of trials financed by pharmaceutical companies was not found to be any worse than that of trials financed in other ways.

conclusionPublished drug trials that are financed by pharmaceutical companies may present a distorted picture. This cannot be explained by any difference in methodological quality between such trials and trials financed in other ways.

Indexed as

Ethics, PharmacyClinical Trials as TopicConflict of InterestDrug IndustryGermanyHumansPublication BiasResearch Support as Topic

Identifiers

PMID20467553
PMCPMC2868984
OpenAlexW1524740654

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.