The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ
Open accessAbstract
Objective : To assess the association between competing interests and authors' conclusions in randomised clinical trials. Design : Epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ from January 1997 to June 2001. Financial competing interests were defined as funding by for profit organisations and other competing interests as personal, academic, or political. Studies : 159 trials from 12 medical specialties. Main outcome measures : Authors' conclusions defined as interpretation of extent to which overall results favoured experimental intervention. Conclusions appraised on 6 point scale; higher scores favour experimental intervention. Results : Authors' conclusions were significantly more positive towards the experimental intervention in trials funded by for profit organisations alone compared with trials without competing interests (mean difference 0.48 (SE 0.13), P=0.014), trials funded by both for profit and non-profit organisations (0.30 (SE 0.10), P=0.003), and trials with other competing interests (0.45 (SE 0.13), P=0.006). Other competing interests and funding from both for profit and non-profit organisations were not significantly associated with authors' conclusions. The association between financial competing interests and authors' conclusions was not explained by methodological quality, statistical power, type of experimental intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological), type of control intervention (for example, placebo or active drug), or medical specialty. Conclusions : Authors' conclusions in randomised clinical trials significantly favoured experimental interventions if financial competing interests were declared. Other competing interests were not significantly associated with authors' conclusions.
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.
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
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
Moher, D., Pham, B., Jones, A., Cook, D. J., Jadad, A. R., Moher, M., Tugwell, P., & Klassen, T. P. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)01085-x · Cited by 3,560
Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · Cited by 3,127
Publication bias in clinical research
Easterbrook, P. J., Gopalan, R., Berlin, J. A., & Matthews, D. R. (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y · Cited by 3,109
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-1-2 · Cited by 2,755
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- 10.1136/bmj.317.7154.291 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02605-2 · DOI · Paper page
- Wahlbeck, 1999, Beyond conflict of interest. Sponsored drug trials show more favourable outcomes., BMJ, 318, 465
- 10.7326/0003-4819-135-11-200112040-00010 · DOI · Paper page
- Altman, 1996, Comparing several groups using analysis of variance., BMJ, 312, 1472, 10.1136/bmj.312.7044.1472 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.323.7323.1253 · DOI
- Dieppe, 1999, Funding clinical research., Lancet, 353, 1626, 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)75755-X · DOI
- Davidoff, 2001, Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability., Ann Intern Med, 135, 463, 10.7326/0003-4819-135-6-200109180-00016 · DOI
Cited by
Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gotzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., Elbourne, D., Egger, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c869 · Cited by 8,883
SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials
Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Gotzsche, P. C., Altman, D. G., Mann, H., Berlin, J. A., Dickersin, K., Hrobjartsson, A., Schulz, K. F., Parulekar, W. R., et al. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e7586 · Cited by 6,251
Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gøtzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., Elbourne, D., Egger, M., & Altman, D. G. (2012) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001 · Cited by 2,345
Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gøtzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., Elbourne, D., Egger, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004 · Cited by 1,858
Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review
Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.4.454 · Cited by 1,816
Metadata
- Authors
- Kjaergard, L., & Als-Nielsen, B.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-08-03
- Volume
- 325
- Issue
- 7358
- Pages
- 249
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2056651344
- Cited by
- 433
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 17.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.325.7358.249
- The paper
- Kjaergard, L., & Als-Nielsen, B. (2002). Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7358.249
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
