ArticleAmerican journal of public health2018
The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review.
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.
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
117 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using Mendelian randomization (STROBE-MR): a Korean translation of explanation and elaboration.Ewha medical journal · 2025Guideline
- Effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis: an overview of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Immunotherapy or Targeted Therapy Versus Best Supportive Care for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Haloperidol versus second-generation antipsychotics on the cognitive performance of individuals with schizophrenia and related disorders: pairwise meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Trends in psychiatry and psychotherapy · 2025Pooled it
- Factors affecting adherence to disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis: systematic review.Journal of neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Enhancing quality of life in epilepsy with a digital intervention (emyna): Results of the ELAINE randomized controlled trial.Epilepsia open · 2024Trial
- Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Article
- Ultraprocessed food research and scientific discourse.Nature food · 2026Review
- 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 · 2026Article
- Reviewing ecosystems of evidence: synthesising the evidence on the commercial determinants of health from a complex systems perspective.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Building a case for accelerated clinical development of drugs and vaccines - what are the driving forces?Globalization and health · 2026Article
- Bridging functional bionanomaterials and the clinic: strategic communication as a translational enabler.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Method for and potential value of reflexive stakeholder mapping of a policy evaluation team: the example of the national evaluation of the NHS Pharmacy First scheme.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Scientific Meetings in Medical Oncology: Are We Facing a Time- and Resource-Consuming Plethora?Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Article
- How can academic researchers more effectively contribute to environmental toxicology and health efforts for regulatory decisions, policymakers, nonprofits, and communities?Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2026Review
57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.