Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33109515›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2020

Influence and management of conflicts of interest in randomised clinical trials: qualitative interview study.

Lasse Østengaard, Andreas Lundh, Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, Suhayb Abdi, Mustafe H A Gelle, Lesley A Stewart, Isabelle Boutron, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Lasse ØstengaardCentre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO), Odense University Hospital, Kløvervænget 10, 13th floor, 5000 Odense C, Denmark lasseoestengaard@bib.sdu.dk.ORCID 0000-0001-7033-3722
Andreas LundhCentre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO), Odense University Hospital, Kløvervænget 10, 13th floor, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.
Tine Tjørnhøj-ThomsenNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Suhayb AbdiCentre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO), Odense University Hospital, Kløvervænget 10, 13th floor, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.
Mustafe H A GelleCentre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO), Odense University Hospital, Kløvervænget 10, 13th floor, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.
Lesley A StewartCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Isabelle BoutronUniversité de Paris, CRESS, Inserm, INRA, F-75004, Paris, France.
Asbjørn HróbjartssonCentre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO), Odense University Hospital, Kløvervænget 10, 13th floor, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo characterise and analyse the experiences of trial researchers of if and how conflicts of interest had unduly influenced clinical trials they had worked on, what management strategies they had used to minimise any potential influence, and their experiences and views on conflicts of interest more generally.

designQualitative interview study.

participantsTrial researchers who had participated in at least 10 clinical trials with methodological or statistical expertise. Researchers differed by geographical location, educational background, and experience with different types of funders. Interviewees were identified by searches on Web of Science and snowball sampling. 52 trial researchers were approached by email; 20 agreed to be interviewed.

settingInterviews conducted by telephone, recorded, transcribed verbatim, imported to NVivo 12, and analysed by systematic text condensation. Semistructured interviews focused on financial and non-financial conflicts of interest.

resultsThe interviewees had participated in a median of 37.5 trials and were mainly male physicians who had experience with commercial and non-commercial trial funders. Two predefined themes (influence of conflicts of interest and management strategies) and two additional themes (definition and reporting of conflicts of interest) emerged. Examples of perceived influence of conflicts of interest were: choice of inferior comparator, manipulation of the randomisation process, prematurely stopping the trials, fabrication of data, blocking access to data, and spin (eg, overly favourable interpretation of the results). Examples of strategies to manage conflicts of interest were: disclosure procedures, exclusion of the funder from design and analysis, independent committees, contracts ensuring complete access to the data, and no restriction by the funder on analysis and reporting. Interviewees used different definitions or thresholds for what they considered to be conflicts of interest, and they described different criteria for when to report them. Some interviewees considered non-commercial financial conflicts of interest (eg, funding of trials by governmental health agencies with a political agenda) to be equally or more important than commercial financial conflicts of interest (eg, funding by drug and device companies), but more challenging to report and manage.

conclusionThis study described how trial researchers perceive conflicts of interest unduly influencing clinical trials they had worked on, and the management strategies they used to prevent these influences. The results indicated considerable variability in researchers' understanding of what conflicts of interest are and when they should be reported.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchResearch Personnel

Identifiers

PMID33109515
PMCPMC7590918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.