Funding tied to spinal study outcomes, levels of evidence

February 28, 2014
Funding tied to spinal study outcomes, levels of evidence
Source of funding for spinal research is significantly associated with study outcome and level of evidence, according to a review published in the Feb. 1 issue of The Spine Journal.

(HealthDay)—Source of funding for spinal research is significantly associated with study outcome and level of evidence (LOE), according to a review published in the Feb. 1 issue of The Spine Journal.

Amir Reza Amiri, from the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital in Stanmore, U.K., and colleagues conducted a systematic literature review of 1,356 published spinal studies in five leading spinal, orthopedics, neurosurgery, and general medical journals (online or print) during 2010. Information on self-reported potential conflict of interest and type of funding (foundation, industry, public, intramural, multiple [including industry], multiple [without industry], and unfunded) were identified for each paper. Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines were used for LOE ranking.

The researchers observed a significant association between LOE and source of funding (P < 0.01). The greatest proportion of level IV evidence was industry-funded studies (65 percent). The proportion of industry-funded studies with favorable outcomes was significantly higher than that of publicly- and foundation-funded studies (88 percent versus 73 and 74 percent, respectively). In industry-funded studies, the associated odds ratio for reporting favorable outcomes was 2.7 compared to studies with public funding and 2.6 compared to studies with foundation funding. The highest proportions of unfavorable (14 percent) and equivocal (23 percent) outcomes were seen with level I studies, whereas level IV studies had the highest proportion of favorable outcome (85 percent). Self-reported conflict of interest was not associated with LOE (P = 0.83) or study outcome (P = 0.25).

"We demonstrated a significant association between source of funding, study outcome, and LOE in research," the authors write.

Explore further: Positive outcome no more likely in industry-funded trials

More information: Abstract
Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)

Related Stories

Positive outcome no more likely in industry-funded trials

July 5, 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 to research ...

Tests don't predict outcome after spine fusion for back pain

November 15, 2012

(HealthDay)—Currently, there is no test available to reliably predict which patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) will achieve a good clinical outcome after spinal fusion surgery, according to the results of a literature ...

Chiropractic care beats sham therapy for spinal pain

November 19, 2013

(HealthDay)—Short-term chiropractic therapy is more effective than a sham intervention for treating spinal pain, but the difference is not clinically meaningful, according to research published in the Nov. 15 issue of Spine.

Recommended for you

Sustaining biomedical research: Med school deans speak out

May 27, 2015

Cuts in federal support and unreliable funding streams are creating a hostile work environment for scientists, jeopardizing the future of research efforts and ultimately clinical medicine, according to leaders of the nation's ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.