CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 162Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyPolitical Influence and Corporate Strategies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis

Lundh, Andreas, Lexchin, Joel, Mintzes, Barbara, Schroll, Jeppe B., Bero, Lisa·2018·Intensive Care Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s00134-018-5293-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose Clinical research is widely sponsored by drug and device companies. We investigated 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. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review.Methods In this update we searched MEDLINE and Embase (2010 to February 2015), Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). We included empirical studies that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. Two assessors included papers, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether conclusions agreed with results.Results We included 27 additional papers in this update (review now includes 75 papers). Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI 1.17-1.37), no difference in harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI 0.64-2.93) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI 1.19-1.51) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in reporting of data and heterogeneity of results. 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 1.05-1.50), compared with non-industry sponsored studies.Conclusions Drug and device studies sponsored by manufacturing companies have more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than studies sponsored by other sources.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00134-018-5293-7

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 58 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Lundh A, Lexchin J, Sismondo S, Busuioc OA, Bero L (2011) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:MR000033
  2. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L (2012) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:MR000033
  3. The Cochrane Collaboration (2014) Review Manager (RevMan), version 5.3.5.: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 162

Related

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)
  • Hvidovre Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Lundh, Andreas
ORCID
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-08-21
Volume
44
Issue
10
Pages
1603-1612
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
DOI
10.1007/s00134-018-5293-7
OpenAlex
W2888260605
Semantic Scholar
c39013a69577395e9c63ac2e2d7e4e8ac4c36583
Cited by
162
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 3
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Intensive Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Macquarie University
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
industry funding, pharmaceutical industry, medical device industry, research funding sources, research bias, risk of bias, blinding, selective outcome reporting, conflicts of interest, clinical trials
MeSH terms
Drug Industry, Equipment and Supplies, Research Support as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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