ReviewJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2020
Sponsorship bias in clinical trials: growing menace or dawning realisation?
Review in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Direct factor Xa inhibitors versus low molecular weight heparins or vitamin K antagonists for prevention of venous thromboembolism in elective primary hip or knee replacement or hip fracture repair.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- A Meta-Analysis of Mathematics Fact Fluency Interventions for Students With Mathematics Difficulties (MD).Journal of learning disabilitiesPooled it
- Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists: Exciting Avenues Beyond Weight Loss.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025 · on this mapReview
- Pharmacological Interventions for Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review of Randomised Control Trials.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Implementation of the EU's Health Technology Assessment regulation: where does existing methods guidance require concretization and what are the relevant methodological options?International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Review
- Global Equity in Clinical Trials: An ASCO Policy Statement.JCO global oncology · 2024Article
- Conclusions of clinical trials assessing monoclonal antibodies and sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: a meta-research study.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Article
- The quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses assessing the effects of ankle-foot orthosis on clinical outcomes in stroke patients: A methodological systematic review.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Industry influence in healthcare harms patients: myth or maxim?Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2022Review
- Do we really know how many clinical trials are conducted ethically? Why research ethics committee review practices need to be strengthened and initial steps we could take to strengthen them.Journal of medical ethics · 2021Review
- Moving towards less biased research.BMJ open science · 2021Article
- Developing the collaboration between the James Lind Library and theJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2020Article
- COVID-19: fail to prepare, prepare to fail.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.