SynthesisPLoS biology2014
Nonindustry-sponsored preclinical studies on statins yield greater efficacy estimates than industry-sponsored studies: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PLoS biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 6 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- 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 Navigation Guide - evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: integration of animal and human evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth.Environmental health perspectives · 2014Pooled it
- Nonindustry-sponsored preclinical studies on statins yield greater efficacy estimates than industry-sponsored studies: a meta-analysis.PLoS biology · 2014Pooled 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
- Bioaccessibility and nutraceutical potential of phenolic compounds in Annona crassiflora Mart. pulp for colorectal chemoprevention.European journal of nutrition · 2025Article
- Risk of Bias Assessments and Evidence Syntheses for Observational Epidemiologic Studies of Environmental and Occupational Exposures: Strengths and Limitations.Environmental health perspectives · 2020Article
- Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0.PLoS biology · 2020Article
- Adaptation of the Systematic Review Framework to the Assessment of Toxicological Test Methods: Challenges and Lessons Learned With the Zebrafish Embryotoxicity Test.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2019Article
- Authorization of Animal Experiments Is Based on Confidence Rather than Evidence of Scientific Rigor.PLoS biology · 2016Article
- Update on Inflammatory Biomarkers and Treatments in Ischemic Stroke.International journal of molecular sciences · 2016Review
- Evidence from Toxicology: The Most Essential Science for Prevention.Environmental health perspectives · 2016Article
- Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement.PLoS biology · 2015Article
- Assessment of Web-Based Consumer Reviews as a Resource for Drug Performance.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Article
- 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
- Testing cardiovascular drug safety and efficacy in randomized trials.Circulation research · 2014Review
- Some salt with your statin, professor?PLoS biology · 2014Article
- Inconsistencies in variable reporting and methods in larval zebrafish behavioral assays.Neurotoxicology and teratologyReview
- How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards.Environment internationalArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Industry-sponsored clinical drug studies are associated with publication of outcomes that favor the sponsor, even when controlling for potential bias in the methods used. However, the influence of sponsorship bias has not been examined in preclinical animal studies. We performed a meta-analysis of preclinical statin studies to determine whether industry sponsorship is associated with either increased effect sizes of efficacy outcomes and/or risks of bias in a cohort of published preclinical statin studies. We searched Medline (January 1966-April 2012) and identified 63 studies evaluating the effects of statins on atherosclerosis outcomes in animals. Two coders independently extracted study design criteria aimed at reducing bias, results for all relevant outcomes, sponsorship source, and investigator financial ties. The I(2) statistic was used to examine heterogeneity. We calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) for each outcome and pooled data across studies to estimate the pooled average SMD using random effects models. In a priori subgroup analyses, we assessed statin efficacy by outcome measured, sponsorship source, presence or absence of financial conflict information, use of an optimal time window for outcome assessment, accounting for all animals, inclusion criteria, blinding, and randomization. The effect of statins was significantly larger for studies sponsored by nonindustry sources (-1.99; 95% CI -2.68, -1.31) versus studies sponsored by industry (-0.73; 95% CI -1.00, -0.47) (p value<0.001). Statin efficacy did not differ by disclosure of financial conflict information, use of an optimal time window for outcome assessment, accounting for all animals, inclusion criteria, blinding, and randomization. Possible reasons for the differences between nonindustry- and industry-sponsored studies, such as selective reporting of outcomes, require further study.
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.