Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167
复制
发表时间：
2003-05-31
影响因子：
105.7
通讯作者：
Clark, O
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lexchin, J;Bero, LA;Clark, O
目的调查制药企业资助药物研究是否与对资助者有利的结果相关，以及制药企业资助的试验方法是否与其他来源支持的试验方法不同。在1966年1月至2002年12月和Embase（1980年1月至2002年12月）检索中，补充了参考文献和作者个人档案中确定的材料。数据由三位作者独立提取，不一致意见通过协商解决。与其他来源资助的研究相比，制药公司资助的研究发表的可能性更小。由制药公司赞助的研究比由其他赞助商赞助的研究更有可能获得有利于赞助商的结局（比值比4.05; 95%置信区间2.98至5.51; 18次比较）。没有13项研究，分析方法报告说，由行业资助的研究是较差的quality.Conclusion系统偏差有利于产品，这是由公司资助的research。解释包括选择了与研究产品不适当的对照品和发表偏倚。
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.