SynthesisCanadian respiratory journal
The nature and influence of pharmaceutical industry involvement in asthma trials.
Synthesis in Canadian respiratory journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Evidence for stratified conflicts of interest policies in research contexts: a methodological review.BMJ open · 2022Review
- Translating clinical trials from human to veterinary oncology and back.Journal of translational medicine · 2015Review
- Article
- Anti-inflammatory dimethylfumarate: a potential new therapy for asthma?Mediators of inflammation · 2013Review
- A Content Analysis of Self-Reported Financial Relationships in Biomedical Research.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
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
backgroundPharmaceutical industry-sponsored research has been shown to be biased toward reporting positive results. Frequent industry participation in trials assessing the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta<span style="vertical-align: sub">2<⁄span>-agonist (LABA) combination treatment makes assessing industry influence difficult and warrants an assessment of specific potential publication bias in this area.
objectiveTo describe the frequency of industry involvement in ICS⁄LABA trials and explore associations among significant outcomes, type of industry involvement and type of primary outcome.
methodsA systematic review of trials comparing ICS⁄LABA combination therapy with ICS monotherapy for asthma was conducted. Data concerning the type of industry sponsorship, primary outcome and statistical results were collected. Comparisons between type of sponsorship and significant results were analyzed using Pearson's chi squared test and relative risk.
resultsOf 91 included studies (median year of publication 2005 [interquartile range 1994 to 2008]), 86 (95%) reported pharmaceutical involvement. Author affiliation was reported in 49 of 86 (57%), and 19 of 86 (22%) were industry-reported trials without full publications. The remainder were published journal articles. Studies with a first or senior author affiliated with industry were 1.5 times more likely to report statistically significant results for the primary outcome compared with studies with other types of industry involvement. Pulmonary measures were 1.5 times more likely to be statistically significant than were measures of asthma control.
conclusionsThe potential biases identified were consistent with other research focused on author role and industry involvement, and suggest that degree of bias may vary with type of affiliation.
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.