The DOI matches its Crossref record; 302 of the 302 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Industry sponsorship and research outcome
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical-industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship. SEARCH METHODS: In this update we searched MEDLINE (2010 to February 2015), Embase (2010 to February 2015), the Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors screened abstracts and identified and included relevant papers. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-seven new papers were included in this update and in total the review contains 75 included papers. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.37) (25 papers) (moderate quality evidence), similar harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) (four papers) (very low quality evidence) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51) (29 papers) (low quality evidence) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data and the results were heterogeneous. We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.98) (four papers). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.50) (13 papers), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98) (six papers). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“There is potential for bias in the review findings arising from such involvement, particularly when the funder or sponsor has an interest in obtaining a particular result.157”
From PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [157]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“We did not include domains for features that would be expected to operate indirectly, through the included bias domains. 14 15”
From RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019) · cites this paper as [14]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The interference of industry bias is likely minimal, in contrast to other subject areas [22,23], given the lack of profits available for CoQ10.”
From Effect of Coenzyme Q10 on statin-associated myalgia and adherence to statin therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Reported mechanisms of sponsorship bias include eligibility criteria, sample size, allocation and blinding, choice of comparators, outcome assessment, statistical analyses and even practices, such as selective outcome reporting (Lundh et al. 2017; Holman and Elliott 2018; Catalogue of Bias 2019).”
From Sponsorship bias in randomised controlled trials on postoperative pain after third molar extraction: A meta-research study (2026) · cites this paper as Lundh et al. 2017
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Concerns have been raised that industry sponsorship may bias clinical research, particularly RCTs.”
From Sponsorship bias in randomised controlled trials on postoperative pain after third molar extraction: A meta-research study (2026) · cites this paper as Lundh et al. 2017
In the citing paper
“Although both industry funded and non-industry funded trials are susceptible to bias, industry funding is associated with conclusions that favour the intervention.”
From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [106]
In the citing paper
“A systematic review of 75 methodological studies, comparing industry funded with non-industry funded studies (mostly randomised trials), reported that industry studies more often had favourable conclusions (risk ratio 1.34 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.51) compared with non‐industry studies.106”
From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [106]
In the citing paper
“Lundh et al 39 showed that industry involvement by the manufacturing company leads to more favourable results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources.”
From Should antidepressants be used for major depressive disorder? (2020) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“As a substantial proportion of research concerning antidepressants is prone to ‘for profit bias’, the results of previous results likely overestimate benefit and underestimate harm.”
From Should antidepressants be used for major depressive disorder? (2020) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“Industry-sponsored studies showed more often benefits, relative risk (RR) 1.27 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.37), and more often favourable conclusions, RR 1.34 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.51).”
From Should antidepressants be used for major depressive disorder? (2020) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“Trials at high or unclear risk of bias tend to overestimate benefits and underestimate harms.”
From Should antidepressants be used for major depressive disorder? (2020) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“In this regard, a Cochrane review that included 75 articles compared favorable outcomes between industry‐funded studies and studies using other funding sources.”
From The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool 2 (RoB 2) versus the original RoB: A perspective on the pros and cons (2024) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“It showed that the results are in favor of better efficacy findings in industry‐funded studies than other sources of funding (risk ratio [RR]: 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17–1.37).”
From The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool 2 (RoB 2) versus the original RoB: A perspective on the pros and cons (2024) · cites this paper as [16]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Items 201–302 of 302
Furuse, J., Okusaka, T., Bridgewater, J. A., et al. (2010) · Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology · doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2010.10.009 · Cited by 36
Djulbegović, B., Cantor, A. B., & Clarke, M. J. (2003) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/714906103 · Cited by 34
Manufacturer Support and Outcome
Mandelkern, M. (1999) · The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.4088/jcp.v60n0210a · Cited by 33
The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation
Pengel, L. H. M., Barcena, L., & Morris, P. J. (2008) · Transplant International · doi:10.1111/j.1432-2277.2008.00789.x · Cited by 33
Catalá-López, F., Sanfélix‐Gimeno, G., Ridao-López, M., & Peiró, S. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069462 · Cited by 33
Differential Citation Rates of Major Cardiovascular Clinical Trials According to Source of Funding
Conen, D., Torres, J., & Ridker, P. M. (2008) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.108.794016 · Cited by 33
Gewandter, J. S., Smith, S. M., McKeown, A., Burke, L. B., Hertz, S. H., Hunsinger, M., Katz, N. P., Lin, A. H., McDermott, M., Rappaport, B. A., et al. (2013) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2013.11.009 · Cited by 33
Mitigating Adverse Event Reporting Bias in Spine Surgery
Auerbach, J. D., McGowan, K. B., Halevi, M., Gerling, M. C., Sharan, A. D., Whang, P. G., & Maislin, G. (2013) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/jbjs.l.00251 · Cited by 33
Nkansah, N., Nguyen, T. U., Iraninezhad, H., & Bero, L. A. (2009) · Public Health Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s136898000900487x · Cited by 32
Self-citationPublication bias in the pulmonary/allergy literature: effect of pharmaceutical company sponsorship.
LISS, H. P. (2006) · PubMed · Cited by 32
Does the Pharmaceutical Industry Influence Guidelines? Two Examples From Germany
Schott, G., Dünnweber, C., Mühlbauer, B., Niebling, W., Pachl, H., & Ludwig, W.-D. (2013) · Deutsches Ärzteblatt international · doi:10.3238/arztebl.2013.0575 · Cited by 31
Jang, S., Chae, Y. K., Haddad, T. C., & Majhail, N. S. (2010) · Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · doi:10.1007/s10549-010-0870-7 · Cited by 31
Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non-immunocompromised adults
Grillo‐Ardila, C. F., Gaitán, H., Ángel‐Müller, E., Parra, A. I. R., & Lethaby, A. E. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010389 · Cited by 31
Kaiser, K. A., Cofield, S. S., Fontaine, K. R., Glasser, S. P., Thabane, L., Chu, R., Ambrale, S., Dwary, A. D., Kumar, A., Nayyar, G. M. L., et al. (2011) · International Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1038/ijo.2011.207 · Cited by 30
Ma, D., Zhang, Z., Zhang, X., & Li, L. (2013) · Current Medical Research and Opinion · doi:10.1185/03007995.2013.860020 · Cited by 29
Gewandter, J. S., Smith, S. M., McKeown, A., Burke, L. B., Hertz, S. H., Hunsinger, M., Katz, N. P., Lin, A. H., McDermott, M., Rappaport, B. A., et al. (2014) · Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2014.01.170 · Cited by 29
Brignardello-Petersen, R., Carrasco-Labra, A., Yanine, N., Ulloa, C., Araya, I., Pintor, F., Villanueva, J., & Cornejo-Ovalle, M. (2013) · The Journal of the American Dental Association · doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0035 · Cited by 29
Comparing Tolerability of Olanzapine in Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders
Moteshafi, H., Zhornitsky, S., Brunelle, S., & Stip, É. (2012) · Drug Safety · doi:10.1007/bf03261978 · Cited by 28
Aneja, A., Esquitin, R., Shah, K., Iyengar, R. L., Nisenbaum, R. A., de Melo, M. N., Mathewkutty, S., Sethi, S. S., Mamdani, M., & Farkouh, M. E. (2013) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.10.056 · Cited by 28
Funding source and the quality of reports of chronic wounds trials: 2004 to 2011
Hodgson, R. M., Allen, R. J., Broderick, E., Bland, M., Dumville, J. C., Ashby, R. L., Bell-Syer, S. E., Foxlee, R., Hall, J., Lamb, K. V., et al. (2014) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-19 · Cited by 28
Davis, J. M., Chen, N., & Glick, I. (2008) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1301493 · Cited by 27
Secular Changes in Published Clinical Trials of Second‐Line Agents in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Anderson, J. J., Felson, D. T., & Meenan, R. F. (1991) · Arthritis & Rheumatism · doi:10.1002/art.1780341015 · Cited by 27
Bennett, C. L., Lai, S. Y., Henke, M., Barnato, S. E., Armitage, J. O., & Sartor, O. A. (2010) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.309 · Cited by 26
Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Empirical Study of Trials Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov
Bourgeois, F. T., Murthy, S., & Mandl, K. D. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028820 · Cited by 26
Factors Associated with Publication Following Presentation at a Transplantation Meeting
Glick, N., MacDonald, I., Knoll, G. A., Brabant, A., & Gourishankar, S. (2006) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.01203.x · Cited by 26
Industry-funded Positive Studies Not Associated with Better Design or Larger Size
Cunningham, M. R. A., Warme, W. J., Schaad, D. C., Wolf, F. M., & Leopold, S. S. (2006) · Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · doi:10.1097/blo.0b013e3180312057 · Cited by 26
Godlee, F. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b5405 · Cited by 26
Randomized Trials Stopped Early for Benefit: A Systematic Review
Montori, V. M., Devereaux, P. J., Adhikari, N. K. J., Burns, K. E. A., Eggert, C. H., Briel, M., Lacchetti, C., Leung, T. W., Darling, E., Bryant, D. M., et al. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.294.17.2203 · Cited by 26
Morrey, B. F. (2008) · Yearbook of Orthopedics · doi:10.1016/s0276-1092(08)79275-7 · Cited by 26
Does the Funding Source Influence the Results in Economic Evaluations?
Fleurence, R., Spackman, E., & Hollenbeak, C. S. (2010) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.2165/11530530-000000000-00000 · Cited by 25
Financial disclosures of authors involved in spine research: an underestimated source of bias
Bartels, R., Delye, H., & Boogaarts, J. H. D. (2011) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2086-x · Cited by 25
Polyzos, N., Valachis, A., Mauri, D., & Ioannidis, J. (2011) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.101506 · Cited by 25
Hill, C. L., Buchbinder, R., & Osborne, R. H. (2007) · PubMed · Cited by 24
Reporting of sources of funding in systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry
Faggion, C. M., Atieh, M. A., & Zanicotti, D. G. (2014) · BDJ · doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.47 · Cited by 24
Disclosure of competing financial interests and role of sponsors in phase III cancer trials.
Tuech, J., Moutel, G., Pessaux, P., Thoma, V., Schraub, S., & Hervé, C. (2005) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2004.12.036 · Cited by 24
Li, X., Yang, G., Tao, K., Zhang, H., Zhou, Q.-H., & Ling, C. (2013) · Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3109/00365521.2013.845909 · Cited by 24
Factors Associated with Results and Conclusions of Trials of Thiazolidinediones
Rattinger, G. B., & Bero, L. A. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005826 · Cited by 24
Self-citationConflict of Interest in the Assessment of Thromboprophylaxis After Total Joint Arthroplasty
Lee, Y., Chung, C. Y., Koo, K., Lee, K. M., Ji, H.-M., & Park, M. S. (2012) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/jbjs.j.01033 · Cited by 24
Publication bias in five dental implant journals: an observation from 2005 to 2009.
Yuan, J. C., Shyamsunder, N., Barao, V. A. R., Lee, D. J., & Sukotjo, C. (2011) · PubMed · Cited by 23
Gartlehner, G., Morgan, L. C., Thieda, P., & Fleg, A. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.019 · Cited by 23
Chen, Z., Ba, G., Shen, T., & Fu, Q. (2012) · Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00402-012-1607-3 · Cited by 22
Jefferson, T., Jones, M., Doshi, P., et al. (2014) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005253 · Cited by 22
Comparing Tolerability of Olanzapine in Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders:
Baldessarini, R. J. (2012) · Drug Safety · doi:10.2165/11641670-000000000-00000 · Cited by 21
Thirugnanam, S., Pinto, R. L., Cook, D. J., et al. (2012) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc11241 · Cited by 21
Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections
Yue, J., Dong, B. R., Yang, M. J., Chen, X., Wu, T., & Liu, G. J. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008056.pub2 · Cited by 21
Potthast, R., Vervölgyi, V., McGauran, N., Kerekes, M. F., Wieseler, B., & Kaiser, T. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092067 · Cited by 20
Dunn, A. G., Mandl, K. D., Coiera, E. W., & Bourgeois, F. T. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084951 · Cited by 20
Vandenbroucke, J. P., Helmerhorst, F. M., & Rosendaal, F. R. (2000) · PubMed · Cited by 19
Conflict of interest in psychiatry
Ahmer, S., Arya, P., Anderson, D., & Faruqui, R. A. (2005) · Psychiatric Bulletin · doi:10.1192/pb.29.8.302 · Cited by 19
Sponsorship-Related Outcome Selection Bias in Published Economic Studies of Triptans
Peura, P. K., Martikainen, J. A., Purmonen, T. T., & Turunen, J. H. O. (2011) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x11403834 · Cited by 19
Recommendations for a uniform assessment of publication bias related to funding source
van Lent, M., Overbeke, J., & Out, H. J. (2013) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-120 · Cited by 18
Katz, K. A., Karlawish, J. H., Chiang, D. S., Bognet, R. A., Propert, K. J., & Margolis, D. J. (2006) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2006.07.005 · Cited by 18
Clinical trial participation improves outcome: A matched historical cohort study
Baker, J. R., Vandal, A. C., Yeoh, J., Zeng, I. S. L., Wong, S. P., & Ryan, S. N. (2013) · Clinical Trials · doi:10.1177/1740774513496915 · Cited by 17
Risperidone versus placebo for schizophrenia
Rattehalli, R. D., Jayaram, M., & Smith, M. (2010) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006918.pub2 · Cited by 17
Zani, B., Pienaar, E. D., Oliver, J., & Siegfried, N. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028759 · Cited by 16
Industry Collaboration and Randomized Clinical Trial Design and Outcomes
Roper, N., Zhang, N., & Korenstein, D. R. (2014) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3590 · Cited by 16
Influence of study sponsorship on head and neck cancer randomized trial results
Sun, G. H., Houlton, J. J., MacEachern, M., Bradford, C. R., & Hayward, R. A. (2012) · Head & Neck · doi:10.1002/hed.23151 · Cited by 16
The role of private industry in pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials
Buesching, D. P., Luce, B. R., & Berger, M. L. (2012) · Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · doi:10.2217/cer.12.9 · Cited by 16
A review of economic impact of targeted oral anticancer medications
Shen, C., Chien, C., Geynisman, D. M., Smieliauskas, F., & Shih, Y. T. (2013) · Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · doi:10.1586/14737167.2014.868310 · Cited by 16
Sponsorship, Antidepressant Dose, and Outcome in Major Depressive Disorder
Sinyor, M., Schaffer, A., Smart, K. A., LEVITT, A. J., Lanctôt, K. L., & Grysman, N. (2012) · The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.4088/jcp.11r07204 · Cited by 15
The unobtainable placebo: control of independent clinical research by industry?
Christensen, M., & Knop, F. K. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60024-5 · Cited by 15
Graham, C. N., Mauskopf, J., Lawson, A. H., Ascher‐Svanum, H., & Bruhn, D. F. (2011) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.1741 · Cited by 14
The effect of funding sources on donepezil randomised controlled trial outcome: a meta-analysis
Killin, L. O. J., Russ, T. C., Starr, J. M., Abrahams, S., & Sala, S. D. (2014) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004083 · Cited by 14
Lubowitz, J. H., Appleby, D., Centeno, J. M., Woolf, S. K., & Reid, J. B. (2007) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/0363546507304720 · Cited by 14
The importance of independent academic statistical analysis
DeAngelis, C. D., & Fontanarosa, P. (2010) · Biostatistics · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxq027 · Cited by 14
Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability
Thomas, P. S., Tan, K., & Yates, D. H. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07506-2 · Cited by 14
Risperidone versus placebo for schizophrenia
Rattehalli, R. D., & Jayaram, M. (2008) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006918 · Cited by 14
Jones, R., Younie, S., Macallister, A., & Thornton, J. (2010) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01335.x · Cited by 13
All clinical trials must be reported in detail and made publicly available
Furukawa, T. A. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7466.626-a · Cited by 13
Sung, K. H., Chung, C. Y., Lee, K. M., Lee, Y., Lee, S. Y., Lee, J., Choi, I. H., Cho, T., Yoo, W. J., & Park, M. S. (2013) · Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics · doi:10.1097/bpo.0b013e318288b42a · Cited by 13
Assessment of research quality in major infertility journals
Glujovsky, D., Riestra, B., Coscia, A., et al. (2012) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.08.018 · Cited by 13
Industry influenced evidence production in collaborative research communities: A network analysis
Dunn, A. G., Gallego, B., & Coiera, E. W. (2012) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.010 · Cited by 12
Evidence based evaluation of immuno-coagulatory interventions in critical care.
Afshari, A. (2011) · PubMed · Cited by 11
How transparent are migraine clinical trials?
Dufka, F. L., Dworkin, R. H., & Rowbotham, M. C. (2014) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000000866 · Cited by 11
Publikationsbias in Abhängigkeit von der Art der Finanzierung bei klinischen Studien
Schott, G., Pachl, H., & Ludwig, W.-D. (2010) · Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen · doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2010.03.029 · Cited by 11
A meta‐analysis comparing trials of antimuscarinic medications funded by industry or not
Tulikangas, P. K., Ayers, A., & O’SULLIVAN, D. M. (2006) · British Journal of Urology · doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2006.06254.x · Cited by 11
We need access to all data from all clinical trials
Gøtzsche, P. C., & Tovey, D. I. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.ed000035 · Cited by 11
Roach, J., Skaggs, D., Sponseller, P., & Macleod, L. M. (2008) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31817bd8f8 · Cited by 10
Occupational Safety of Home Health Workers—Reply
Als-Nielsen, B., Chen, W., Gluud, C., & Gluud, L. L. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.290.23.3070-c · Cited by 9
Industry sponsored research may report more favourable outcomes
Balevi, B. (2011) · Evidence-Based Dentistry · doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400769 · Cited by 9
The influence of industry sponsorship on the acceptance of abstracts and their publication
McLennan, M. T., Leong, F. C., STEELE, A. C., et al. (2008) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2007.12.032 · Cited by 9
Fukunaga, S., Kusama, M., & Ono, S. (2014) · SpringerPlus · doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-740 · Cited by 9
The Nature and Influence of Pharmaceutical Industry Involvement in Asthma Trials
Bond, K., Spooner, C., Tjosvold, L., Lemière, C., & Rowe, B. H. (2012) · Canadian Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1155/2012/890457 · Cited by 8
Gerrald, K. R., Malone, R., & Shilliday, B. B. (2010) · Clinical Diabetes · doi:10.2337/diaclin.28.3.121 · Cited by 8
Probst, P., Grummich, K., Ulrich, A. B., Büchler, M. W., Knebel, P., & Diener, M. K. (2014) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-138 · Cited by 8
Goswami, N. D., Tsalik, E. L., Naggie, S., Miller, W. C., Horton, J. R., Pfeiffer, C. D., & Hicks, C. B. (2014) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-31 · Cited by 8
West to East Drift in European Sponsored Clinical Trials
Karlberg, J. (2008) · The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) · Cited by 8
Halpern, S. D., Barton, T. D., Gross, R., Hennessy, S., Berlin, J. A., & Strom, B. L. (2004) · Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · doi:10.1002/pds.1059 · Cited by 7
Pharmaceutical Sponsorship Bias Influences Thrombolytic Literature in Acute Ischemic Stroke
Radecki, R. P. (2011) · Western Journal of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.5811/westjem.2011.5.2166 · Cited by 7
Spanemberg, L., Massuda, R., Lovato, L. M., Paim, L. L., Vares, E. A., da Rocha, N. S., & Ceresér, K. M. M. (2011) · Psychiatric Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11126-011-9191-1 · Cited by 6
Who Funds Research by Spanish Dermatologists? Comparative Analysis of Articles Published in 2008
Batalla, A., García-Doval, I., Aranegui, B., et al. (2011) · Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas · doi:10.1016/j.adengl.2010.12.003 · Cited by 6
Phillips, J. L., Wassersug, R. J., & McLeod, D. L. (2012) · International Journal of Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/ijcp.12025 · Cited by 5
Sawata, H., & Tsutani, K. (2011) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/1756-0500-4-222 · Cited by 5
Batalla, A., García-Doval, I., Aranegui, B., et al. (2011) · Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas · doi:10.1016/j.ad.2010.12.011 · Cited by 5
Evaluation of investigator bias in industry-funded clinical trials of latanoprost
Jinapriya, D., Anraku, A., Alasbali, T. A., et al. (2011) · Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2011.09.015 · Cited by 5
Results availability from clinical research of female urinary incontinence
Shamliyan, T., Kane, R. L., Wyman, J. F., & Sainfort, F. (2011) · Neurourology and Urodynamics · doi:10.1002/nau.21220 · Cited by 4
Hashmi, S. Z., Noureldin, M. E., & Khan, S. N. (2014) · Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12178-014-9223-1 · Cited by 3
THE IMPACT OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ON ADJUDICATION AND OUTCOMES IN CARDIOVASCULAR CLINICAL TRIALS
Esquitin, R., Aneja, A., Shah, K., et al. (2010) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/s0735-1097(10)61238-7 · Cited by 2
Pharmacotherapy: why industry-sponsored trials are more often positive and other useful information
Strupp, M. L. (2010) · Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1007/s00415-010-5457-z · Cited by 1
Assessment of bias in outcomes reported in trials on pneumonia: a systematic review
Avni, T., Shiber, S., Leibovici, L., et al. (2013) · European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1007/s10096-013-2034-2 · Cited by 1
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan) 2014
Cited by
Sorted by citations
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Sterne, J. A. C., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Blencowe, N. S., Boutron, I., Cates, C. J., Cheng, H.-Y., Corbett, M. S., Eldridge, S. M., et al. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898 · Cited by 34,787
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & the PRISMA-P Group (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647 · Cited by 13,120
Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n160 · Cited by 13,262
Jakobsen, J. C., Gluud, C., Wetterslev, J., & Winkel, P. (2017) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1 · Cited by 2,747
Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0
Percie du Sert, N., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., Emerson, M., et al. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411 · Cited by 2,677
Metadata
- Authors
- Lundh, A., Lexchin, J., Mintzes, B., Schroll, J. B., & Bero, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern Denmark (DK)
- York University (CA)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Herlev Hospital (DK)
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-02-16
- Volume
- 2017
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- MR000033-MR000033
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- PMC
- PMC8132492
- OpenAlex
- W1714980748
- Semantic Scholar
- 22ef5f94e3a061ee7d5d9a1a495601cbc87f08bd
- Cited by
- 1,697
- References
- 302
- Citations by year
- 2026: 71 · 2025: 113 · 2024: 98 · 2023: 127 · 2022: 135 · 2021: 131 · 2020: 159 · 2019: 143 · 2018: 152 · 2017: 146
- FWCI
- 28.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Université Paris Diderot
- National Institute of Mental Health
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
- Keywords
- pharmaceutical industry sponsorship, conflicts of interest, risk of bias, pharmaceutical research, research funding sources, publication bias, selective reporting, peer review, editorial policy, editorial independence
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, Drug Industry, Equipment and Supplies, Industry, Research Support as Topic, Conflict of Interest, Treatment Outcome, Publication Bias, Research Report
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
