Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26307387›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2016

Industry Support of Medical Research: Important Opportunity or Treacherous Pitfall?

William M Tierney, Eric M Meslin, Kurt Kroenke

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Ten Years ofSports health
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Ethical challenges in resuscitation.Intensive care medicine · 2018
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

William M TierneyRegenstrief Institute, Inc., 410 West Tenth Street Suite HS2000, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. wtierney@regenstrief.org.
Eric M MeslinIndiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Kurt KroenkeRegenstrief Institute, Inc., 410 West Tenth Street Suite HS2000, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmaceutical and device manufacturers fund more than half of the medical research in the U.S. Research funding by for-profit companies has increased over the past 20 years, while federal funding has declined. Research funding from for-profit medical companies is seen as tainted by many academicians because of potential biases and prior misbehavior by both investigators and companies. Yet NIH is encouraging partnerships between the public and private sectors to enhance scientific discovery. There are instances, such as methods for improving drug adherence and post-marketing drug surveillance, where the interests of academician researchers and industry could be aligned. We provide examples of ethically performed industry-funded research and a set of principles and benchmarks for ethically credible academic-industry partnerships that could allow academic researchers, for-profit companies, and the public to benefit.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingBiomedical ResearchConflict of InterestEthics, BusinessHumansIndustryPublic-Private Sector PartnershipsResearch Support as TopicUnited Statesconflict of interestethics, researchpublic–private partnershipsresearch support

Identifiers

PMID26307387
PMCPMC4720652

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.