ArticlePloS one2012
Patient organizations' funding from pharmaceutical companies: is disclosure clear, complete and accessible to the public? An Italian survey.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Financial relationships between patient and consumer representatives and the health industry: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Pooled it
- Industry funding of patient and health consumer organisations: systematic review with meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Pooled it
- Patient organizations involvement in healthcare: a rapid review and conceptual framework.Globalization and health · 2026Review
- Information About Canadian Patient Groups' Conflicts of Interest and Industry Funding-Incomplete, Inconsistent, and Unreliable: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2025Article
- Commercial influences on patient and public involvement: a renewed call for research and action.Health promotion international · 2024Article
- Article
- Disclosure of Pharmaceutical Industry Funding of Patient Organisations in Nordic Countries: Can Industry Self-Regulation Deliver on its Transparency Promise?International journal of health services : planning, administration, evaluation · 2022Article
- National patient groups in Canada and their disclosure of relationships with pharmaceutical companies: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Involving Patient Groups in Drug Research: A Systematic Review of Reasons.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- Article
- Exposing drug industry funding of UK patient organisations.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Article
- Legislating Patient Representation: A Comparison Between Austrian and German Regulations on Self-Help Organizations as Patient Representatives.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2018Article
- EUPATI and Patients in Medicines Research and Development: Guidance for Patient Involvement in Regulatory Processes.Frontiers in medicine · 2018Article
- Could co-payments on drugs help to make EU health care systems less open to political influence?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2013Article
- Patient advocacy organizations: institutional conflicts of interest, trust, and trustworthiness.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany patients' and consumers' organizations accept drug industry funding to support their activities. As drug companies and patient groups move closer, disclosure become essential for transparency, and the internet could be a useful means of making sponsorship information accessible to the public. This survey aims to assess the transparency of a large group of Italian patient and consumer groups and a group of pharmaceutical companies, focusing on their websites. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsPatient and consumer groups were selected from those stated to be sponsored by a group of pharmaceutical companies on their websites. The websites were examined using two forms with principal (name of drug companies providing funds, amount of funding) and secondary indicators of transparency (section where sponsors are disclosed, update of sponsorship). Principal indicators were applied independently by two reviewers to the patient and consumer groups' websites. Discordances were solved by discussion. One hundred fifty-seven Italian patient and consumer groups and 17 drug companies were considered. Thirteen drug companies (76%) named at least one group funded, on their Italian websites. Of these, four (31%) indicated the activities sponsored and two (15%) the amount of funding. Of the 157 patient and consumer groups, 46 (29%) named at least one pharmaceutical company as providing funds. Three (6%) reported the amount of funding, 25 (54%) the activities funded, none the proportion of income derived from drug companies. Among the groups naming pharmaceutical company sponsors, 15 (33%) declared them in a dedicated section, five (11%) on the home page, the others in the financial report or other sections. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Disclosure of funds is scarce on Italian patient and consumer groups' websites. The levels of transparency need to be improved. Disclosure of patient and consumer groups provided with funds is frequent on Italian pharmaceutical companies' websites, but information are often not complete.
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.