Academic Medical Centers' Standards for Clinical-Trial Agreements with Industry
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Although industry sponsors provide approximately 70 percent of the funding for clinical drug trials in the United States, little is known about the legal agreements that exist between industry sponsors and academic investigators. We studied institutional standards regarding contractual provisions that restrict investigators' control over trials. METHODS: We used a structured, cross-sectional mail survey of medical-school research administrators responsible for negotiating clinical-trial agreements with industry sponsors. RESULTS: Of 122 institutions approached, 107 participated. There was a high degree of consensus among administrators about the acceptability of several contractual provisions relating to publications. For example, more than 85 percent reported that their office would not approve provisions giving industry sponsors the authority to revise manuscripts or decide whether results should be published. There was considerable disagreement about the acceptability of provisions allowing the sponsor to insert its own statistical analyses in manuscripts (24 percent allowed them, 47 percent disallowed them, and 29 percent were not sure whether they should allow them), draft the manuscript (50 percent allowed it, 40 percent disallowed it, and 11 percent were not sure whether they should allow it), and prohibit investigators from sharing data with third parties after the trial is over (41 percent allowed it, 34 percent disallowed it, and 24 percent were not sure whether they should allow it). Disputes were common after the agreements had been signed and most frequently centered on payment (75 percent of administrators reported at least one such dispute in the previous year), intellectual property (30 percent), and control of or access to data (17 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Standards for certain restrictive provisions in clinical-trial agreements with industry sponsors vary considerably among academic medical centers. Greater sharing of information about legal relationships with industry sponsors is desirable in order to build consensus about appropriate standards.
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
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?
Most industry initiated trials are controlled by the company sponsoring and funding the trial; this authority is often enforced by contractual agreements signed between the company and trial investigators.
“Most industry initiated trials are controlled by the company sponsoring and funding the trial; this authority is often enforced by contractual agreements signed between the company and trial investigators.38 48”
From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [48]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 132
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Bodenheimer T. Uneasy alliance: clini- cal investigators and the pharmaceutical in- dustry. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1539-44.
- Cohen W, Florida R, Goe WR. Universi- ty-industry research centers in the United States. Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon Univer- sity Press, 1994.
- Gelijns AC, Thier SO. Medical innova- tion and institutional interdependence: re- thinking university-industry connections. JAMA 2002;287:72-7.
- Authors
- Mello, M. M., Clarridge, B. R., & Studdert, D. M.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- University of Massachusetts System (US)
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2005-05-26
- Volume
- 352
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 2202-2210
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2144910394
- Cited by
- 132
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 16.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (1r01ns042438-01a1, 5r01ns046777-02)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (1-R01-NS46777-01, 1-R01-NS42438-01A1)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
- Keywords
- clinical trial agreements, academic medical centers, contract clauses, publication rights, data sharing restrictions, intellectual property disputes, payment disputes, research management, conflicts of interest
- MeSH terms
- Academic Medical Centers, Clinical Trials as Topic, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Industry, Interinstitutional Relations, Publishing, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Support as Topic, United States, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Negotiating, Disclosure, Contracts, 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