ArticleAmerican journal of public health2012
Promoting transparency in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research.
Article in American journal of public health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Probiotics for infantile colic: a systematic review.BMC pediatrics · 2013Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Post-publication corrections of rheumatology articles: a comprehensive analysis.Advances in rheumatology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Why are our medicines so expensive? Spoiler: Not for the reasons you are being told….The European journal of general practice · 2024Article
- Assessment of clinical trial protocols for pathology content using the SPIRIT-Path guidelines highlights areas for improvement.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2022Article
- Trust and willingness towards COVID-19 vaccine uptake: a mixed-method study in Ghana, 2021.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2022Article
- Registration of intervention trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine for four neurological diseases on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov: a narrative review.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2022Review
- The accountability of the private sector towards citizens in times of crisis: vaccines, medicines and equipment.European journal of public health · 2021Article
- Characteristics of Heart Failure Trials Associated With Under-Representation of Women as Lead Authors.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2020Review
- Pitfalls and Safeguards in Industry-Funded Research.Ochsner journal · 2020Review
- Comparison of published and unpublished phase I clinical cancer trials: an analysis of the CliniclTrials.gov database.Investigational new drugs · 2018Review
- Research interactions between academia and food companies: how to improve transparency and credibility of an inevitable liaison.European journal of nutrition · 2018Article
- An analysis of redactions in Canada's Common Drug Review Clinical Review Reports and how they relate to the patients' voice.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Impact of industry collaboration on randomised controlled trials in oncology.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2017Review
- Clinical research data sharing: what an open science world means for researchers involved in evidence synthesis.Systematic reviews · 2016Article
- Weak evidence on nalmefene creates dilemmas for clinicians and poses questions for regulators and researchers.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2016Review
- Publication and non-publication of drug trial results: a 10-year cohort of trials in Norwegian general practice.BMJ open · 2016Review
- Views of Ethical Best Practices in Sharing Individual-Level Data From Medical and Public Health Research: A Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2015Article
- Article
- Predictors of clinical trial data sharing: exploratory analysis of a cross-sectional survey.Trials · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Strong, evidence-based practice requires that objective, unbiased research be available to inform individual clinical decisions, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and expert guideline recommendations. Industry has used seeding trials, publication planning, messaging, ghostwriting, and selective publication and reporting of trial outcomes to distort the medical literature and undermine clinical trial research by obscuring information relevant to patients and physicians. Policies that promote transparency in the clinical trial research process, through improved and expanded disclosure of investigator contributions and funding, comprehensive publicly available trial registration, and independent analysis of clinical trial data analysis may address these subversive practices by improving accountability among industry and investigators. Minimizing marketing's impact on clinical trial research and strengthening the science will protect medical literature's integrity and the public's health.
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.