Funding tied to spinal study outcomes, levels of evidence

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.

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

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 ...

Updated guidelines available for lumbar spinal stenosis

Aug 08, 2013

(HealthDay)—Updated evidence-based guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis are now available, according to report published in the July issue of The Spine Journal.

Chiropractic care beats sham therapy for spinal pain

Nov 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. ...

Recommended for you

Were clinical trial practices in East Germany questionable?

Oct 23, 2014

Clinical trials carried out in the former East Germany in the second half of the 20th century were not always with the full knowledge or understanding of participants with some questionable practices taking place, according ...

Schumacher's doctor sees progress after injury

Oct 23, 2014

A French physician who treated Michael Schumacher for nearly six months after the Formula One champion struck his head in a ski accident says he is no longer in a coma and predicted a possible recovery within three years.

User comments