Cited by 183Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareEthics in Clinical ResearchStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

A Randomized Study of How Physicians Interpret Research Funding Disclosures

Open access
Kesselheim, Aaron S., Robertson, Christopher T., Myers, Jessica A., Rose, Susannah L., Gillet, Victoria, Ross, Kathryn M., Glynn, Robert J., Joffe, Steven +1 more·2012·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The effects of clinical-trial funding on the interpretation of trial results are poorly understood. We examined how such support affects physicians' reactions to trials with a high, medium, or low level of methodologic rigor. METHODS: We presented 503 board-certified internists with abstracts that we designed describing clinical trials of three hypothetical drugs. The trials had high, medium, or low methodologic rigor, and each report included one of three support disclosures: funding from a pharmaceutical company, NIH funding, or none. For both factors studied (rigor and funding), one of the three possible variations was randomly selected for inclusion in the abstracts. Follow-up questions assessed the physicians' impressions of the trials' rigor, their confidence in the results, and their willingness to prescribe the drugs. RESULTS: The 269 respondents (53.5% response rate) perceived the level of study rigor accurately. Physicians reported that they would be less willing to prescribe drugs tested in low-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.89; P=0.008) and would be more willing to prescribe drugs tested in high-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.18 to 4.32; P<0.001). Disclosure of industry funding, as compared with no disclosure of funding, led physicians to downgrade the rigor of a trial (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P=0.006), their confidence in the results (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98; P=0.04), and their willingness to prescribe the hypothetical drugs (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.94; P=0.02). Physicians were half as willing to prescribe drugs studied in industry-funded trials as they were to prescribe drugs studied in NIH-funded trials (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.71; P<0.001). These effects were consistent across all levels of methodologic rigor. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians discriminate among trials of varying degrees of rigor, but industry sponsorship negatively influences their perception of methodologic quality and reduces their willingness to believe and act on trial findings, independently of the trial's quality. These effects may influence the translation of clinical research into practice.

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/nejmsa1202397

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [11]Institute of Medicine, Board on Health Sciences Policy Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice 2009 Washington, DC National Academies Press 20662118
  2. [14]Information for authors Lancet 2011 11 (http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/authors/lancet-information-for-authors.pdf).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kesselheim, A. S., Robertson, C. T., Myers, J. A., Rose, S. L., Gillet, V., Ross, K. M., Glynn, R. J., Joffe, S., & Avorn, J.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
  • American Board of Internal Medicine (US)
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2012-09-20
Volume
367
Issue
12
Pages
1119-1127
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2036907307
Cited by
183
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 3
FWCI
24.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Harvard Catalyst
  • ABIM Foundation
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K08HS018465, K08HS18465-01)
  • National Cancer Institute (R25CA092203)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
clinical trial funding, research funding disclosure, pharmaceutical industry sponsorship, NIH funding, prescribing patterns, conflicts of interest, research integrity, generalizability of trial results, bias in clinical trials
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Drug Evaluation, Drug Industry, Humans, Internal Medicine, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Physicians, Regression Analysis, Research Design, Research Support as Topic, United States

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