Industry sponsorship leads to bias in reported findings of clinical trials

December 11, 2012, Wiley

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."

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

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

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 ...

Bias found in mental health drug research presented at major psychiatric meeting

May 22, 2012
When thousands of psychiatrists attend their field's largest annual meeting each year, the presentations they hear about research into drug treatments report overwhelmingly on positive results.

Recommended for you

Best of Last Year—The top Medical Xpress articles of 2017

December 20, 2017
It was a good year for medical research as a team at the German center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Magdeburg, found that dancing can reverse the signs of aging in the brain. Any exercise helps, the team found, but dancing ...

Pickled in 'cognac', Chopin's heart gives up its secrets

November 26, 2017
The heart of Frederic Chopin, among the world's most cherished musical virtuosos, may finally have given up the cause of his untimely death.

Sugar industry withheld evidence of sucrose's health effects nearly 50 years ago

November 21, 2017
A U.S. sugar industry trade group appears to have pulled the plug on a study that was producing animal evidence linking sucrose to disease nearly 50 years ago, researchers argue in a paper publishing on November 21 in the ...

Female researchers pay more attention to sex and gender in medicine

November 7, 2017
When women participate in a medical research paper, that research is more likely to take into account the differences between the way men and women react to diseases and treatments, according to a new study by Stanford researchers.

Drug therapy from lethal bacteria could reduce kidney transplant rejection

August 3, 2017
An experimental treatment derived from a potentially deadly microorganism may provide lifesaving help for kidney transplant patients, according to an international study led by investigators at Cedars-Sinai.

Exploring the potential of human echolocation

June 25, 2017
People who are visually impaired will often use a cane to feel out their surroundings. With training and practice, people can learn to use the pitch, loudness and timbre of echoes from the cane or other sounds to navigate ...

1 comment

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.

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.