Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review

• Published in: BMJ Vol. 326; no. 7400; pp. 1167 - 1170
• Main Authors: Lexchin, Joel, Bero, Lisa A, Djulbegovic, Benjamin, Clark, Otavio
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London British Medical Journal Publishing Group 31.05.2003; British Medical Association; BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; BMJ Publishing Group LTD
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Clinical trial. Drug monitoring; Clinical trials; Clinical Trials as Topic - standards; Cohort analysis; Corporate sponsorship; Drug Industry - economics; Drug Industry - ethics; Drug Industry - standards; Ethics; Experimentation; Financial services industries; Financing, Organized; Funding; General pharmacology; Grants; Health outcomes; Industrial research; Industry; Medical sciences; Meta-analysis; Pharmaceutical industry; Pharmaceutical preparations; Pharmaceutical research; Pharmacoeconomics; Pharmacology. Drug treatments; Publishing - economics; Research - standards; Research methods; Research Support as Topic; Subject heading schemes; Systematic review; Brazil; Human; Drug; Quality assurance; Quality criterion; Treatment efficiency; Scientific research; Clinical trial; Methodological bias; Pharmacology; Pharmaceutical industry; Medical application; Bibliographic review; Empirical Approach; Biomedical and Behavioral Research
• ISSN: 0959-8138; 0959-8146; 1756-1833; 1468-5833; 1756-1833
• DOI: 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167

Abstract 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.