The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support. METHODS: Medline (January 1966 to December 2002) and Embase (January 1980 to December 2002) searches were supplemented with material identified in the references and in the authors' personal files. Data were independently abstracted by three of the authors and disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: 30 studies were included. Research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published than research funded by other sources. Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors (odds ratio 4.05; 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.51; 18 comparisons). None of the 13 studies that analysed methods reported that studies funded by industry was of poorer quality. CONCLUSION: Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“pharmaceutical companies, who fund a substantial number of RCTs, are more likely to seek publication of results with statistically positive outcomes. 9”
From Reporting research results: a moral obligation for all researchers. (2007) · cites this paper as [9]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Several investigations show strong associations between the source of funding and the conclusions of research articles [ 219 – 222 ].”
From Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007) · cites this paper as [222]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, bias, as indicated by a prevalence of more favourable outcomes, has been demonstrated for clinical research funded by industry compared with studies funded by other sources [257–259].”
From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [259]
In the citing paper
“Additionally, different outcomes from the same trials can be a source of pharmaceutical marketing bias.35”
In the citing paper
“Empirical evidence points toward funding source sometimes being associated with estimated treatment effects [30].”
From CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010) · cites this paper as [30]
In the citing paper
“Lexchin and colleagues [166] observed that outcomes of reports of randomized trials and meta-analyses of clinical trials funded by the pharmaceutical industry are more likely to favor the sponsor's product compared to studies with other sources of funding.”
From The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009) · cites this paper as [166]
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
The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration
Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Moher, D., Egger, M., Davidoff, F., Elbourne, D., Gøtzsche, P. C., Lang, T., & for the CONSORT Group (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012 · Cited by 3,835
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
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. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.1987 · Cited by 2,545
Hennekens, C. H., Buring, J. E., & Mayrent, S. L. (1987) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,319
The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Jüni, P. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 · Cited by 1,981
(1988) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-108-2-316_4 · Cited by 1,938
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
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & for the CONSORT Group* (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00011 · Cited by 1,426
Factors Influencing Publication of Research Results
Dickersin, K. (1992) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03480030052036 · Cited by 931
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Djulbegovic, 1999, Violation of the uncertainty principle in conduct of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of erythropoietin (EPO)., Blood, 94, 399A
- 10.1056/NEJM199304223281612 · DOI
- Wahlbeck, 1999, Sponsored drug trials show more-favourable outcomes., BMJ, 318, 465
- Massie, 1984, Impact of pharmaceutical industry funding of clinical research: results of a survey of antianginal trials., Circulation, 70, 390S
- 10.1001/jama.1997.03540390068038 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.281.24.2287 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100121018 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
the CONSORT Group, Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 · Cited by 13,371
Pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults
Kleinstäuber, M., Witthöft, M., Steffanowski, A., van Marwijk, H., Hiller, W., & Lambert, M. J. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010628.pub2 · Cited by 11,369
Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., et al. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008 · Cited by 10,636
Metadata
- Authors
- Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O.
- Affiliations
- York University (CA)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lexchin, Joel
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2003-05-29
- Volume
- 326
- Issue
- 7400
- Pages
- 1167-1170
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- PMC
- PMC156458
- OpenAlex
- W2136284733
- Cited by
- 2,147
- References
- 81
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 89 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 86 · 2017: 84 · 2016: 82 · 2015: 100 · 2014: 114 · 2013: 107 · 2012: 150
- FWCI
- 10.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
- Keywords
- pharmaceutical industry sponsorship, research bias, publication bias, trial quality, research funding sources, comparator selection, conflicts of interest
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Trials as Topic, Drug Industry, Financing, Organized, Publishing, Research, Research Support as Topic
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
