Industry sponsorship leads to bias in reported findings of clinical trials

Studies reporting the results of industry sponsored clinical trials present a more favourable picture of the effects of drugs and medical devices than those reporting on non-industry sponsored trials, according to a new Cochrane systematic review. The researchers call for a rethink of the way that industry bias is handled in medical guidelines and reviews.

The outcomes of influence the recommendations that make about drugs and other . Therefore, it is important that trials are designed, carried out and reported on without bias towards particular products. The fact that trials are increasingly sponsored by industry makes it difficult to ensure that this is always the case. An industry sponsor can influence results and how they are reported to present their company and products in a better light, for example, by selectively reporting positive results. Previous reviews showed that industry sponsored drug trials produce more favourable results, but the researchers wanted to expand the evidence base to medical devices and find out if new requirements for clinical had made any difference.

The researchers carried out a systematic review of 48 studies on drugs and medical devices. The drugs and devices being studied were prescribed for a wide range of different diseases and conditions, from to , and were compared to placebos or other treatments. Studies sponsored by industry reported greater benefits and fewer harmful side effects compared to studies that were not sponsored by industry. Papers describing industry sponsored studies presented more favourable overall conclusions, and results and conclusions sections in these papers were less likely to agree.

"Our results suggest that industry sponsored drug and medical device studies are more often favourable to the sponsor's products than non-industry sponsored studies," said lead researcher Andreas Lundh of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark. "These findings resonate with current calls for better access to information about how trials are carried out, and raw data."

The possible influence of study sponsorship is not always taken into account in and assessments of the efficacy of drugs and . The researchers suggest that guidelines and reviews, including Cochrane systematic reviews, could improve transparency by disclosing sponsorship when results from industry sponsored studies are reported and by regarding industry sponsorship as a factor that increases the risk of bias.

"Industry sponsorship should be reported in original published studies, but it must also be taken into account when results are reported on elsewhere," said senior author Lisa Bero of the Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California San Francisco in San Francisco, US. "If we agree that industry sponsorship is an important source of bias then we need to think about developing better methods for reporting, assessing and handling industry bias in systematic reviews that evaluate the effects of drugs and devices."

More information: Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 12. Art. No.:MR000033. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Positive outcome no more likely in industry-funded trials

Jul 05, 2012

(HealthDay) -- Industry-sponsored clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis drugs are no more likely to report positive outcomes than trials funded by other means, and in many cases use better methodology, according ...

Just how useful are animal studies to human health?

Dec 15, 2006

Animal studies are of limited usefulness to human health because they are of poor quality and their results often conflict with human trials, argue researchers in a study on bmj.com today.

Statins: Benefits questionable in low-risk patients

Jan 19, 2011

There is not enough evidence to recommend the widespread use of statins in people with no previous history of heart disease, according to a new Cochrane Systematic Review. Researchers say statins should be prescribed with c ...

Recommended for you

ALS Ice Bucket Challenge arrives in North Korea

Aug 31, 2014

It's pretty hard to find a novel way to do the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge by now, but two-time Grammy-winning rapper Pras Michel, a founding member of the Fugees, has done it—getting his dousing in the center ...

Cold cash just keeps washing in from ALS challenge

Aug 28, 2014

In the couple of hours it took an official from the ALS Association to return a reporter's call for comment, the group's ubiquitous "ice bucket challenge" had brought in a few million more dollars.

Medtronic spends $350M on another European deal

Aug 27, 2014

U.S. medical device maker Medtronic is building stronger ties to Europe, a couple months after announcing a $42.9 billion acquisition that involves moving its main executive offices across the Atlantic, where it can get a ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jim4321
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2012
The headline asserts bias -- but the stated results don't show that. Correlation is not causation. Perhaps, industry is careful about how they spend their money on trials and only conduct trials when they are fairly sure of a positive outcome. Other sponsors may be more interested in other things -- such as basic science. The editor needs to go back and decide how to establish the causal role of industry bias -- or he/she needs to retract.