Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30252531›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health2018

The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review.

Alice Fabbri, Alexandra Lai, Quinn Grundy, Lisa Anne Bero

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 117 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

117 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. What Matters Most: The Top 10 Child and Adolescent Cancer Research Priorities in Australia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alice FabbriAll of the authors are with the Charles Perkins Centre and School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Alexandra LaiAll of the authors are with the Charles Perkins Centre and School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Quinn GrundyAll of the authors are with the Charles Perkins Centre and School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Lisa Anne BeroAll of the authors are with the Charles Perkins Centre and School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCorporate interests have the potential to influence public debate and policymaking by influencing the research agenda, namely the initial step in conducting research, in which the purpose of the study is defined and the questions are framed.

objectivesWe conducted a scoping review to identify and synthesize studies that explored the influence of industry sponsorship on research agendas across different fields. SEARCH

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase (from inception to September 2017) for all original research and systematic reviews addressing corporate influence on the research agenda. We hand searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included empirical articles and systematic reviews that explored industry sponsorship of research and its influence on research agendas in any field. There were no restrictions on study design, language, or outcomes measured. We excluded editorials, letters, and commentaries as well as articles that exclusively focused on the influence of industry sponsorship on other phases of research such as methods, results, and conclusions or if industry sponsorship was not reported separately from other funding sources. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least 2 authors independently screened and then extracted any quantitative or qualitative data from each study. We grouped studies thematically for descriptive analysis by design and outcome reported. We developed the themes inductively until all studies were accounted for. Two investigators independently rated the level of evidence of the included studies using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine ratings. MAIN

resultsWe included 36 articles. Nineteen cross-sectional studies quantitatively analyzed patterns in research topics by sponsorship and showed that industry tends to prioritize lines of inquiry that focus on products, processes, or activities that can be commercialized. Seven studies analyzed internal industry documents and provided insight on the strategies the industry used to reshape entire fields of research through the prioritization of topics that supported its policy and legal positions. Ten studies used surveys and interviews to explore the researchers' experiences and perceptions of the influence of industry funding on research agendas, showing that they were generally aware of the risk that sponsorship could influence the choice of research priorities.

conclusionsCorporate interests can drive research agendas away from questions that are the most relevant for public health. Strategies to counteract corporate influence on the research agenda are needed, including heightened disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest in published articles to allow an assessment of commercial biases. We also recommend policy actions beyond disclosure such as increasing funding for independent research and strict guidelines to regulate the interaction of research institutes with commercial entities. Public Health Implications. The influence on the research agenda has given the industry the potential to affect policymaking by influencing the type of evidence that is available and the kinds of public health solutions considered. The results of our scoping review support the need to develop strategies to counteract corporate influence on the research agenda.

Indexed as

IndustryResearch Support as TopicConflict of InterestPolicy Making

Identifiers

PMID30252531
PMCPMC6187765

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.