Conflict of interest in psychiatry
Conflict of interest in psychiatry
复制标题
DOI：
10.1192/pb.29.8.302
复制
发表时间：
2005-08-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Faruqui, Rafey
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ahmer, Syed;Arya, Pradeep;Faruqui, Rafey
目的和方法为了研究精神药物随机对照试验(RCT)中研究支持与结果之间的关系，我们回顾了5年间发表在四种精神病学杂志上的所有RCT。结果制造商支持的随机对照试验的阳性结果比例(125/138，91%，95%CI 88-93)显著高于非制造商支持的随机对照试验(39/50，78%，95%CI 72-84；P=0.02)。有一位员工作者几乎保证了一个积极的结果(56/58，97%，95%CI 94-99)。药物随机对照试验的临床意义结果与实验药物制造商的支持显著相关。基于这些随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析可能偏向于新药。
AIMS AND METHOD To study the association between study support and outcome in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychotropic drugs, we reviewed all RCTs published in four psychiatry journals over a 5-year period. Chi-squared tests were used to analyse the association between RCT support and outcome, and logistic regression to determine which variable best predicted outcome.RESULTS A significantly higher proportion of manufacturer-supported RCTs (125/138, 91%, 95% CI 88-93) had a positive outcome than non-manufacturer-supported RCTs (39/50, 78%, 95% CI 72-84; P=0.02). Having an employee author almost guaranteed a positive outcome (56/58, 97%, 95% CI 94-99).CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS Outcomes of drug RCTs have a significant association with support by the manufacturer of the experimental drug. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on these RCTs may be biased in favour of newer drugs.