Cited by 132Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareEthics in Clinical ResearchHealth and Medical Research Impacts

Academic Medical Centers' Standards for Clinical-Trial Agreements with Industry

Open access
Mello, Michelle M., Clarridge, Brian R., Studdert, David M.·2005·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmsa044115

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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”

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

  1. Bodenheimer T. Uneasy alliance: clini- cal investigators and the pharmaceutical in- dustry. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1539-44.
  2. Cohen W, Florida R, Goe WR. Universi- ty-industry research centers in the United States. Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon Univer- sity Press, 1994.
  3. 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
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
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