SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014
Industry sponsorship bias in research findings: a network meta-analysis of LDL cholesterol reduction in randomised trials of statins.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 8 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Brexpiprazole as Adjunctive Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder Following Treatment Failure With at Least One Antidepressant in the Current Episode: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness of interventions for managing postoperative catheter-related bladder discomfort: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of anesthesia · 2019Pooled it
- Use of adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine in older-age adults: a systematic review of economic evidence.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2019Pooled it
- Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis.Intensive care medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Anti-Dementia Drugs for Psychopathology and Cognitive Impairment in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2018Pooled it
- Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Endovascular treatment versus medical care alone for ischaemic stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016Pooled it
- Effect of Probiotics on Blood Lipid Concentrations: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Methodological review of NMA bias concepts provides groundwork for the development of a list of concepts for potential inclusion in a new risk of bias tool for network meta-analysis (RoB NMA Tool).Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Oral anticholinergic drugs versus placebo or no treatment for managing overactive bladder syndrome in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Does type of funding affect reporting in network meta-analysis? A scoping review of network meta-analyses.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Assessing the quality of meta-analyses in systematic reviews in pharmaceutical research in Iran by 2016: A systematic review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2020Review
- Network meta-analysis explained.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2019Article
- Sensitivity of treatment recommendations to bias in network meta-analysis.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2018Article
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of 4 and 2 mg/day brexpiprazole for acute schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2018Article
- Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine.BMC veterinary research · 2017Article
- A threshold analysis assessed the credibility of conclusions from network meta-analysis.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2016Article
- Keeping Public Health Clean: Food Policy Barriers and Opportunities in the Era of the Industrial Epidemics.AIMS public health · 2016Article
- Is the Best Evidence Good Enough: Quality Assessment and Factor Analysis of Meta-Analyses on Depression.PloS one · 2016Article
- Randomised trials in context: practical problems and social aspects of evidence-based medicine and policy.Trials · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the risk of industry sponsorship bias in a systematically identified set of placebo controlled and active comparator trials of statins.
designSystematic review and network meta-analysis. ELIGIBILITY: Open label and double blind randomised controlled trials comparing one statin with another at any dose or with control (placebo, diet, or usual care) for adults with, or at risk of developing, cardiovascular disease. Only trials that lasted longer than four weeks with more than 50 participants per trial arm were included. Two investigators assessed study eligibility. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases and reference lists of relevant articles published between 1 January 1985 and 10 March 2013. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator extracted data and another confirmed accuracy.
main outcome measureMean absolute change from baseline concentration of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. DATA SYNTHESIS: Study level outcomes from randomised trials were combined using random effects network meta-analyses.
resultsWe included 183 randomised controlled trials of statins, 103 of which were two-armed or multi-armed active comparator trials. When all of the existing randomised evidence was synthesised in network meta-analyses, there were clear differences in the LDL cholesterol lowering effects of individual statins at different doses. In general, higher doses resulted in higher reductions in baseline LDL cholesterol levels. Of a total of 146 industry sponsored trials, 64 were placebo controlled (43.8%). The corresponding number for the non-industry sponsored trials was 16 (43.2%). Of the 35 unique comparisons available in 37 non-industry sponsored trials, 31 were also available in industry sponsored trials. There were no systematic differences in magnitude between the LDL cholesterol lowering effects of individual statins observed in industry sponsored versus non-industry sponsored trials. In industry sponsored trials, the mean change from baseline LDL cholesterol level was on average 1.77 mg/dL (95% credible interval -11.12 to 7.66) lower than the change observed in non-industry sponsored trials. There was no detectable inconsistency in the evidence network.
conclusionsOur analysis shows that the findings obtained from industry sponsored statin trials seem similar in magnitude as those in non-industry sources. There are actual differences in the effectiveness of individual statins at various doses that explain previously observed discrepancies between industry and non-industry sponsored trials.
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.