Cited by 29Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology

Positive association between conflicts of interest and reporting of positive results in randomized clinical trials in dentistry

Open access
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, Carrasco-Labra, Alonso, Yanine, Nicolás, Ulloa, Carolina, Araya, Ignacio, Pintor, Fernanda, Villanueva, Julio, Cornejo-Ovalle, Marco·2013·The Journal of the American Dental Association

Abstract

Background The relationship between industry funding and study results has been explored widely in medicine but not in dentistry. The authors aimed to assess the relationship between conflicts of interest (COIs) and study results.Methods The authors assessed all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between July 2010 and June 2012 in the 10 dental journals with the highest impact factors in dentistry. The authors used three definitions of COI and explored their associations with positive study results.Results Depending on the definition of COI, the odds ratio for reporting positive results varied between 2.40 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1.16-5.13) and 9.19 (95 percent CI, 1.71-170.64). The authors found no association between positive study results and journal of publication or area of practice.Conclusions RCTs in which authors have some type of COI are more likely to have results that support the intervention being assessed.Practical implications When reviewing the results of RCTs, clinicians need to be aware of the association between reporting positive study results and the type of COI disclosure and be even more careful when critically appraising and applying their results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0035

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 21 · Cited by 29

Authors
Brignardello-Petersen, R., Carrasco-Labra, A., Yanine, N., Ulloa, C., Araya, I., Pintor, F., Villanueva, J., & Cornejo-Ovalle, M.
Venue
The Journal of the American Dental Association
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-10
Volume
144
Issue
10
Pages
1165-1170
ISSN
0002-8177 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2046271775
Cited by
29
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3
FWCI
2.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of the American Dental Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Universidad de Chile (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Keywords
conflicts of interest, industry funding, reporting bias, randomized controlled trials, dental research, conflict of interest disclosure, critical appraisal, research integrity
MeSH terms
Humans, Research Personnel, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Conflict of Interest, Treatment Outcome, Dental 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