ArticlePLoS biology2014
Some salt with your statin, professor?
Article in PLoS biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Industry sponsorship and publication bias among animal studies evaluating the effects of statins on atherosclerosis and bone outcomes: a meta-analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2015Pooled it
- The relationship between study sponsorship, risks of bias, and research outcomes in atrazine exposure studies conducted in non-human animals: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Environment internationalPooled it
- Scientific integrity issues in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: Improving research reproducibility, credibility, and transparency.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2019Review
- Authorization of Animal Experiments Is Based on Confidence Rather than Evidence of Scientific Rigor.PLoS biology · 2016Article
- The Relationship between Risk of Bias Criteria, Research Outcomes, and Study Sponsorship in a Cohort of Preclinical Thiazolidinedione Animal Studies: A Meta-Analysis.Evidence-based preclinical medicine · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We know that clinical trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry are likely to exaggerate benefit and minimise harms. But do these biases extend to their sponsorship of non-human animal research? Using systematic review and meta-analysis Bero and colleagues show that, in the case of statins, things are a little more complicated. While the conclusions of industry-sponsored studies were indeed more enthusiastic than warranted by their data, the data themselves painted a picture more conservative than was seen in non-industry-sponsored studies. This behaviour is consistent with maximising the return on investment, seeking robust data before embarking on a clinical trial, and, once that investment has been made, making every effort to "prove" that the drug is safe and effective if this is at all credible. The findings suggest that there is something different about industry-sponsored non-human animal research, perhaps reflecting higher standards than is the case elsewhere. Perhaps the academic community can learn something from our colleagues in the commercial sector.
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.