ReviewBritish medical bulletin2016
Can a good tree bring forth evil fruit? The funding of medical research by industry.
Review in British medical bulletin, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Activity of the Tobacco Industry in Research and Scientific Literature.Tobacco use insights · 2024Article
- Where Does Open Science Lead Us During a Pandemic? A Public Good Argument to Prioritize Rights in the Open Commons.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2021Article
- Effects of e-cigarettes and vaping devices on cardiac and pulmonary physiology.The Journal of physiology · 2020Review
- Genome Editing for Rare Diseases.Current stem cell reports · 2020Article
- Rare Opportunities: CRISPR/Cas-Based Therapy Development for Rare Genetic Diseases.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2019Review
- Falling giants and the rise of gene editing: ethics, private interests and the public good.Human genomics · 2017Article
- Ethics Guidelines in Environmental Epidemiology: Their Development and Challenges We Face.Current environmental health reports · 2017Review
- Conflicts of interest among committee members in the National Academies' genetically engineered crop study.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews analysing the influence of funding on the conduct of research have shown how Conflicts of Interest (COIs) create bias in the production and dissemination of data. SOURCES OF DATA: The following is a critical analysis of current opinions in respect to COIs created by industry funding of medical research in academic institutions. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Effective mechanisms are necessary to manage COIs in medical research, and to prohibit COIs that clearly affect validity of research conduct and outcomes. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: While most hold that industry investment in university research is not a barrier to good science, there are questions about how securing funding opportunities might be prioritized over the risks of potential COIs. It is argued that COIs are inherent risks to research integrity, requiring the strengthening of current governance frameworks. GROWING POINTS: The focus on COIs, created by the ostensibly categorical actions of industry, challenges the evolving research priorities within academic institutions. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Less well-defined COIs are equally culpable to financial ones, in terms of the systemic damage they do to science. So, are they appropriately managed as risks within university research settings?
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.