Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25281681›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014

Industry sponsorship bias in research findings: a network meta-analysis of LDL cholesterol reduction in randomised trials of statins.

Huseyin Naci, Sofia Dias, A E Ades

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Network meta-analysis explained.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2019
    Article
  14. Sensitivity of treatment recommendations to bias in network meta-analysis.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Huseyin NaciLSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK Drug Policy Research Group, Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston MA, USA h.naci@lse.ac.uk.
Sofia DiasSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
A E AdesSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U145079307
6 · The paper itself

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

Drug IndustryBiasCholesterol, LDLHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCholesterol, LDLHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID25281681
PMCPMC4184241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.