ArticleAccountability in research2013
Taking financial relationships into account when assessing research.
Article in Accountability in research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of eyelid warming therapies in contact lens-related dry eye and comfortable wearing time: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of revealing authors' conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Trial
- Global Research Trends on Nanoplastics in Food: A Bibliometric Analysis of Human Health Concerns.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Disclosing and Managing Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Scientific Publications.Research ethics · 2023Article
- Evaluating programs for young people with a family member with mental health challenges: protocol for a mixed methods, longitudinal, collaborative evaluation.BMC psychology · 2023Article
- Meaningful Engagement of Persons Affected by Leprosy in Research: An Exploration of Its Interpretation, Barriers, and Opportunities.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Letter regarding "Puppyhood diet as a factor in the development of owner-reported allergy/atopy skin signs in adult dogs in Finland".Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2022Article
- Authorship Issues When Articles are Retracted Due to Research Misconduct and Then Resubmitted.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Open Science in regulatory environmental risk assessment.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2021Article
- Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Investigating Interventions for Melanoma: Cross-sectional Literature Study.JMIR dermatology · 2021Article
- Is it time to revise the definition of research misconduct?Accountability in research · 2019Article
- Systematic overview of hepatitis C infection in the Middle East and North Africa.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Declarations, accusations and judgement: examining conflict of interest discourses as performative speech-acts.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2016Article
- The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science.Accountability in research · 2016Article
- The Influence of Disclosure and Ethics Education on Perceptions of Financial Conflicts of Interest.Science and engineering ethics · 2015Article
- Science and money: problems and solutions.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2014Article
- Science, policy, and the transparency of values.Environmental health perspectives · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many scientific journals, government agencies, and universities require disclosure of sources of funding and financial interests related to research, such as stock ownership, consulting arrangements with companies, and patents. Although disclosure has become one of the central approaches for responding to financial conflicts of interest (COIs) in research, critics contend that information about financial COIs does not serve as a reliable indicator of research credibility, and therefore, studies should be evaluated solely based on their scientific merits. We argue that, while it is indeed important to evaluate studies on their scientific merits, it is often difficult to detect significant influences of financial relationships that affect research credibility. Moreover, at least five factors can be examined to determine whether financial relationships are likely to enhance, undermine, or have no impact on the credibility of research. These include as follows: whether sponsors, institutions, or researchers have a significant financial stake in the outcome of a study; whether the financial interests of the sponsors, institutions, or researchers coincide with the goal of conducting research that is objective and reliable; whether the sponsor, institution, or researchers have a history of biasing research in order to promote their financial goals; how easy it is to manipulate the research in order to achieve financial goals; and whether oversight mechanisms are in place which are designed to minimize bias. Since these factors vary from case to case, evaluating the impact of financial relationships depends on the circumstances. In some situations, one may decide that the financial relationships significantly undermine the study's credibility; in others, one may decide that they have no impact on credibility or even enhance it.
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.