ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2017
Financial ties of principal investigators and randomized controlled trial outcomes: cross sectional study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 2 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
59 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 171 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emotional and psychosocial function after dorsal column spinal cord stimulator implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Association between financial links to indoor tanning industry and conclusions of published studies on indoor tanning: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Pooled it
- Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Doctors' Conflict-of-Interest; What it Looks Like and What to do About it.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2026Article
- Financial Relationships Between Research Sponsors and Funded Investigators in the US.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Conflicts of Interest of Canadian Medical School Deans: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2024Article
- Pediatric dentistry systematic reviews using the GRADE approach: methodological study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Extent, transparency and impact of industry funding for pelvic mesh research: a review of the literature.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism for cancer patients in randomized controlled trials: a bibliographical analysis of funding and trial characteristics.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- Article
- Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2023Review
- Funding has no effect on studies evaluating viscosupplementation for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review of bibliometrics and conflicts of interest.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Review
- Funding has no effect on clinical outcomes of total joint arthroplasty emerging technologies: a systematic review of bibliometrics and conflicts of interest.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2022Article
- Evidence for stratified conflicts of interest policies in research contexts: a methodological review.BMJ open · 2022Review
- Associations Between Aggregate NLP-Extracted Conflicts of Interest and Adverse Events by Drug Product.Studies in health technology and informatics · 2022Article
- Industry influence in healthcare harms patients: myth or maxim?Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2022Review
- Metabolic Strategies in Healthcare: A New Era.Aging and disease · 2022Article
- The Invisible Hand of Industry.Clinical obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the association between the presence of individual principal investigators' financial ties to the manufacturer of the study drug and the trial's outcomes after accounting for source of research funding.
designCross sectional study of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
settingStudies published in "core clinical" journals, as identified by Medline, between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013.
participantsRandom sample of RCTs focused on drug efficacy.
main outcome measureAssociation between financial ties of principal investigators and study outcome.
resultsA total of 190 papers describing 195 studies met inclusion criteria. Financial ties between principal investigators and the pharmaceutical industry were present in 132 (67.7%) studies. Of 397 principal investigators, 231 (58%) had financial ties and 166 (42%) did not. Of all principal investigators, 156 (39%) reported advisor/consultancy payments, 81 (20%) reported speakers' fees, 81 (20%) reported unspecified financial ties, 52 (13%) reported honorariums, 52 (13%) reported employee relationships, 52 (13%) reported travel fees, 41 (10%) reported stock ownership, and 20 (5%) reported having a patent related to the study drug. The prevalence of financial ties of principal investigators was 76% (103/136) among positive studies and 49% (29/59) among negative studies. In unadjusted analyses, the presence of a financial tie was associated with a positive study outcome (odds ratio 3.23, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.1). In the primary multivariate analysis, a financial tie was significantly associated with positive RCT outcome after adjustment for the study funding source (odds ratio 3.57 (1.7 to 7.7). The secondary analysis controlled for additional RCT characteristics such as study phase, sample size, country of first authors, specialty, trial registration, study design, type of analysis, comparator, and outcome measure. These characteristics did not appreciably affect the relation between financial ties and study outcomes (odds ratio 3.37, 1.4 to 7.9).
conclusionsFinancial ties of principal investigators were independently associated with positive clinical trial results. These findings may be suggestive of bias in the evidence base.
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.