Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles
Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005
复制
发表时间：
2007-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
15.8
通讯作者：
Ludwig, David S.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lesser, Lenard I.;Ebbeling, Cara B.;Ludwig, David S.
背景：正如最近对制药研究的分析所表明的那样，工业界对生物医学研究的支持可能会使科学结论产生偏差。然而，这一问题在营养研究领域尚未得到系统的研究。本研究的目的是描述三种常用饮料对健康影响的科学文章的财务赞助特征，并确定赞助如何影响已发表的结论。方法和结果：使用Medline检索全球文献，以确定三种类型的文章1999年1月1日至12月31日期间发表的关于软饮料、果汁和牛奶的研究（干预性研究、观察性研究和科学综述），2003.财务赞助和文章结论由独立的共同研究者小组进行分类。赞助和结论之间的关系进行了探讨，精确的测试和回归分析，控制协变量。206篇文章被纳入研究，其中111篇声明了经济赞助。其中，22%的公司获得了全行业资金，47%的公司没有获得行业资金，32%的公司获得了混合资金。当考虑所有文章类型时，资金来源与结论显著相关（p = 0.037）。对于干预性研究，所有行业资助的不利结论比例为0%，而无行业资助的比例为37%（p = 0.009）。有利与不利的结论的比值比为7.61（95%置信区间1.27至45.73），比较文章与所有行业的资金，没有行业funding.Conclusions：行业资助的营养相关的科学文章可能会偏向有利于赞助商的产品的结论，对公众健康的潜在重大影响。
Background: Industrial support of biomedical research may bias scientific conclusions, as demonstrated by recent analyses of pharmaceutical studies. However, this issue has not been systematically examined in the area of nutrition research. The purpose of this study is to characterize financial sponsorship of scientific articles addressing the health effects of three commonly consumed beverages, and to determine how sponsorship affects published conclusions.Methods and Findings: Medline searches of worldwide literature were used to identify three article types (interventional studies, observational studies, and scientific reviews) about soft drinks, juice, and milk published between 1 January, 1999 and 31 December, 2003. Financial sponsorship and article conclusions were classified by independent groups of coinvestigators. The relationship between sponsorship and conclusions was explored by exact tests and regression analyses, controlling for covariates. 206 articles were included in the study, of which 111 declared financial sponsorship. Of these, 22% had all industry funding, 47% had no industry funding, and 32% had mixed funding. Funding source was significantly related to conclusions when considering all article types (p = 0.037). For interventional studies, the proportion with unfavorable conclusions was 0% for all industry funding versus 37% for no industry funding (p = 0.009). The odds ratio of a favorable versus unfavorable conclusion was 7.61 (95% confidence interval 1.27 to 45.73), comparing articles with all industry funding to no industry funding.Conclusions: Industry funding of nutrition-related scientific articles may bias conclusions in favor of sponsors' products, with potentially significant implications for public health.