SynthesisTrials2017
The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013-2015 - a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 9 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systemic therapies for preventing or treating aromatase inhibitor-induced musculoskeletal symptoms in early breast cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Clinical trials in COVID-19 management & prevention: A meta-epidemiological study examining methodological quality.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Sample size, sample size planning, and the impact of study context: systematic review and recommendations by the example of psychological depression treatment.Psychological medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Research Review: Conflicts of Interest (COIs) in autism early intervention research - a meta-analysis of COI influences on intervention effects.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2021Pooled it
- Study Characteristics Influence the Efficacy of Substance Abuse Treatments: A Meta-analysis of Medications for Smoking Cessation.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020Pooled it
- Omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids for dry eye disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- What is the evidence for the use of parenteral nutrition (PN) in critically ill surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2018Pooled it
- Comparison of the effects of kilohertz- and low-frequency electric stimulations: A systematic review with meta-analysis.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Platelet-rich plasma to treat experimentally-induced skin wounds in animals: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Spin in the Titles and Abstracts of Allergy and Immunology Randomized Controlled Trials With Nonsignificant Outcomes.Cureus · 2025Review
- Changes in Spousal Intimacy in Women Suffering Trauma Symptoms from Domestic Abuse: A Culturally Embedded Intervention Study in Pakistan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
- Alcohol use disorder: An analysis of the evidence underpinning clinical practice guidelines.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2022Article
- Randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery.Surgical neurology international · 2022Review
- Article
- A review of pragmatic trials found a high degree of diversity in design and scope, deficiencies in reporting and trial registry data, and poor indexing.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Review
- Does psychology have a conflict-of-interest problem?Nature · 2019Article
- Article
- Identifying differential miR and gene consensus patterns in peripheral blood of patients with cardiovascular diseases from literature data.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2017Article
- Home institution bias in theScientometricsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTrials financed by for-profit organizations have been associated with favorable outcomes of new treatments, although the effect size of funding source impact on outcome is unknown. The aim of this study was to estimate the effect size for a favorable outcome in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), stratified by funding source, that have been published in general medical journals.
methodsParallel-group RCTs published in The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA between 2013 and 2015 were identified. RCTs with binary primary endpoints were included. The primary outcome was the OR of patients' having a favorable outcome in the intervention group compared with the control group. The OR of a favorable outcome in each trial was calculated by the number of positive events that occurred in the intervention and control groups. A meta-analytic technique with random effects model was used to calculate summary OR. Data were stratified by funding source as for-profit, mixed, and nonprofit. Prespecified sensitivity, subgroup, and metaregression analyses were performed.
resultsFive hundred nine trials were included. The OR for a favorable outcome in for-profit-funded RCTs was 1.92 (95% CI 1.72-2.14), which was higher than mixed source-funded RCTs (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.25-1.43) and nonprofit-funded RCTs (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.26-1.39). The OR for a favorable outcome was higher for both clinical and surrogate endpoints in for-profit-funded trials than in RCTs with other funding sources. Excluding drug trials lowered the OR for a favorable outcome in for-profit-funded RCTs. The OR for a favorable surrogate outcome in drug trials was higher in for-profit-funded trials than in nonprofit-funded trials.
conclusionsFor-profit-funded RCTs have a higher OR for a favorable outcome than nonprofit- and mixed source-funded RCTs. This difference is associated mainly with the use of surrogate endpoints in for-profit-financed drug trials.
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.