SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2015
Industry sponsorship and publication bias among animal studies evaluating the effects of statins on atherosclerosis and bone outcomes: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conflicts of Interest in the Assessment of Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution.Environmental science & technology · 2023Review
- Bias in animal studies of estrogen effects on cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2021Article
- Isoquinoline Alkaloids and Indole Alkaloids Attenuate Aortic Atherosclerosis in Apolipoprotein E Deficient Mice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
- Publication bias in animal research presented at the 2008 Society of Critical Care Medicine Conference.BMC research notes · 2017Article
- Why Having a (Nonfinancial) Interest Is Not a Conflict of Interest.PLoS biology · 2016Article
- Conflicts of interest policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe effect that sponsorship has on publication rates or overall effect estimates in animal studies is unclear, though methodological biases are prevalent in animal studies of statins and there may be differences in efficacy estimates between industry and non-industry sponsored studies. In the present analysis, we evaluated the impact of funding source on publication bias in animal studies estimating the effect of statins on atherosclerosis and bone outcomes.
methodsWe conducted two independent systematic reviews and meta-analyses identifying animal studies evaluating the effect of statins on reducing the risk of atherosclerosis outcomes (n = 49) and increasing the likelihood of beneficial bone outcomes (n = 45). After stratifying the included studies within each systematic review by funding source, three separate analyses were employed to assess publication bias in these meta-analyses—funnel plots, Egger's Linear Regression, and the Trim and Fill methods.
resultsWe found potential evidence of publication bias, primarily in non-industry sponsored studies. In all 3 assessments of publication bias, we found evidence of publication bias in non-industry sponsored studies, while in industry-sponsored studies publication bias was not evident in funnel plots and Egger's regression tests. We also found that inadequate reporting of sponsorship in animal studies is still exceedingly common.
conclusionsIn meta-analyses assessing the effects of statins on atherosclerosis and bone outcomes in animal studies, we found evidence of publication bias, though small numbers of industry-sponsored studies limit the interpretation of the trim-and-fill results. This publication bias is more prominent in non-industry sponsored studies. Industry and non-industry funded researchers may have different incentives for publication. Industry may have a financial interest to publish all preclinical animal studies to maximize the success of subsequent trials in humans, whereas non-industry funded academics may prefer to publish high impact statistically significant results only. Differences in previously published effect estimates between industry- and non-industry sponsored animal studies may be partially explained by publication bias.
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.