CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,816Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyPolitical Influence and Corporate Strategies

Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review

Bekelman, Justin E., Li, Yan, Gross, Cary P.·2003·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.289.4.454
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: Despite increasing awareness about the potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on biomedical research, no comprehensive synthesis of the body of evidence relating to financial conflicts of interest has been performed. OBJECTIVE: To review original, quantitative studies on the extent, impact, and management of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE (January 1980-October 2002), the Web of Science citation database, references of articles, letters, commentaries, editorials, and books and by contacting experts. STUDY SELECTION: All English-language studies containing original, quantitative data on financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions were included. A total of 1664 citations were screened, 144 potentially eligible full articles were retrieved, and 37 studies met our inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator (J.E.B.) extracted data from each of the 37 studies. The main outcomes were the prevalence of specific types of industry relationships, the relation between industry sponsorship and study outcome or investigator behavior, and the process for disclosure, review, and management of financial conflicts of interest. DATA SYNTHESIS: Approximately one fourth of investigators have industry affiliations, and roughly two thirds of academic institutions hold equity in start-ups that sponsor research performed at the same institutions. Eight articles, which together evaluated 1140 original studies, assessed the relation between industry sponsorship and outcome in original research. Aggregating the results of these articles showed a statistically significant association between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions (pooled Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio, 3.60; 95% confidence interval, 2.63-4.91). Industry sponsorship was also associated with restrictions on publication and data sharing. The approach to managing financial conflicts varied substantially across academic institutions and peer-reviewed journals. CONCLUSIONS: Financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions are widespread. Conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.289.4.454

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several investigations show strong associations between the source of funding and the conclusions of research articles.

    “Several investigations show strong associations between the source of funding and the conclusions of research articles [ 219 – 222 ].”

    From Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007) · cites this paper as [219]

  • These factors can affect RCTs from conception to the reporting of results and conclusions.

    “These factors can affect RCTs from conception to the reporting of results and conclusions [13, 32, 33].”

    From Assessing transparency practices in dental randomized controlled trials (2024) · cites this paper as [13]

  • Transparent and reproducible science offers well-established benefits: enhanced research reliability and credibility, increased applicability of results, and reduced bias and waste of resources.

    “Transparent and reproducible science offers well-established benefits: enhanced research reliability and credibility, increased applicability of results, and reduced bias and waste of resources [10–14].”

    From Assessing transparency practices in dental randomized controlled trials (2024) · cites this paper as [13]

  • Reporting funding and conflicts of interest helps prevent bias; reinforces researchers' commitment to conducting research impartially; and enables readers, reviewers, and editors to better assess results by understanding potential external influences.

    “Reporting funding and conflicts of interest helps prevent bias; reinforces researchers’ commitment to conducting research impartially; and enables readers, reviewers, and editors to better assess results by understanding potential external influences [13, 14].”

    From Assessing transparency practices in dental randomized controlled trials (2024) · cites this paper as [13]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
ORCID
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2003-01-22
Volume
289
Issue
4
Pages
454
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.289.4.454
OpenAlex
W2016300030
Cited by
1,816
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 77 · 2017: 82 · 2016: 82 · 2015: 81 · 2014: 71 · 2013: 71 · 2012: 105
FWCI
8.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
Keywords
financial conflicts of interest, industry funding, biomedical research, research integrity, disclosure of financial interests, publication restrictions, data sharing restrictions, conflict of interest management
MeSH terms
Academies and Institutes, Cooperative Behavior, Financial Support, Industry, Research Support as Topic, Conflict of Interest, Peer Review, Research, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review