The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Randomized Study of How Physicians Interpret Research Funding Disclosures
Open accessAbstract
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“The source of research funding can lead to bias or perceptions of bias in the design, conduct, or interpretation of research.121 122”
From Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology using Mendelian Randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration. (2021) · cites this paper as [122]
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
Dermyshi, E., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Hong, W., Qiu, G., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2017) · Neonatology · doi:10.1159/000454668 · Cited by 24,586
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., & deBeer, H. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 · Cited by 10,681
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
(2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · Cited by 8,477
Rosuvastatin to Prevent Vascular Events in Men and Women with Elevated C-Reactive Protein
Ridker, P. M., Danielson, E., Fonseca, F. A. H., Genest, J., Gotto, A. M., Kastelein, J. J. P., Koenig, W., Libby, P., Lorenzatti, A. J., MacFadyen, J. G., et al. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0807646 · Cited by 6,674
Self-citationBombardier, C., Laine, L., Reicin, A. S., Shapiro, D., Burgos‐Vargas, R., Davis, B. R., Day, R. O., Ferraz, M. B., Hawkey, C. J., Hochberg, M. C., et al. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200011233432103 · Cited by 4,014
Rosuvastatin to Prevent Vascular Events in Men and Women With Elevated C-Reactive Protein
Ridker, P. M., Danielson, E., Fonseca, F. A. H., Genest, J. J., Gotto, A. M., Kastelein, J. J. P., Köenig, W., Libby, P., Lorenzatti, A. J., MacFadyen, J. G., et al. (2009) · Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey · doi:10.1097/01.ogx.0000344393.60303.0a · Cited by 3,641
Self-citationNorderyd, O. M., Koch, G., Papias, A., Köhler, A. A., Helkimo, A. N., Brahm, C., Lindmark, U., Lindfors, N., Mattsson, A., Rolander, B., et al. (2015) · PubMed · Cited by 3,584
Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy
Turner, E. H., Matthews, A. M., Linardatos, E., Tell, R. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa065779 · Cited by 2,435
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 · Cited by 2,147
Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals
Asch, D. A., Jedrziewski, M. K., & Christakis, N. A. (1997) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00126-1 · Cited by 2,110
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Sage WM, 2007, Tex Law Rev, 85, 1413
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Skrivankova, V. W., Richmond, R. C., Woolf, B. A. R., Davies, N. M., Swanson, S. A., VanderWeele, T. J., Timpson, N. J., Higgins, J. P. T., Dimou, N., Langenberg, C., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n2233 · Cited by 1,648
Boutron, I., Altman, D. G., Hopewell, S., Vera-Badillo, F., Tannock, I., & Ravaud, P. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2014.56.7503 · Cited by 368
Dunn, A. G., Coiera, E. W., Mandl, K. D., & Bourgeois, F. T. (2016) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-016-0006-7 · Cited by 218
Theories of Institutional Corruption
Thompson, D. F. (2018) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-120117-110316 · Cited by 163
3D bioprinting – An Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects (ELSA) framework
Vijayavenkataraman, S., Lu, W. F., & Fuh, J. Y. H. (2016) · Bioprinting · doi:10.1016/j.bprint.2016.08.001 · Cited by 100
Metadata
- 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)
- ORCID
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2012-09-20
- Volume
- 367
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1119-1127
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- PMC
- PMC3538846
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › 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
