http://bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/325/7358/249
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
|
||||||||||||||
 Collections under
which this article appears: Other
Journalology |
Lise L Kjaergard
Cochrane Hepatobiliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Department 7102, H:S Rigshospitalet, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
Correspondence to: L L Kjaergard
Kjaergard@ctu.rh.dk
Objective: To assess the association between competing
interests and authors' conclusions in randomised clinical trials.
Design: Epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials
published in the BMJ from January 1997 to June 2001. Financial
competing interests were defined as funding by for profit organisations
and other competing interests as personal, academic, or
political.
Studies: 159 trials from 12 medical specialties.
Main outcome measures: Authors' conclusions defined as interpretation
of extent to which overall results favoured experimental intervention.
Conclusions appraised on 6 point scale; higher scores favour experimental
intervention.
Results: Authors' conclusions were significantly more positive
towards the experimental intervention in trials funded by for profit
organisations alone compared with trials without competing interests
(mean difference 0.48 (SE 0.13), P=0.014), trials funded by both for
profit and non-profit organisations (0.30 (SE 0.10), P=0.003), and
trials with other competing interests (0.45 (SE 0.13), P=0.006).
Other competing interests and funding from both for profit and
non-profit organisations were not significantly associated with
authors' conclusions. The association between financial competing
interests and authors' conclusions was not explained by
methodological quality, statistical power, type of experimental
intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological), type of
control intervention (for example, placebo or active drug), or
medical specialty.
Conclusions: Authors' conclusions in randomised clinical
trials significantly favoured experimental interventions if financial
competing interests were declared. Other competing interests were not
significantly associated with authors' conclusions.
|
What is already known on this topic Trials of antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia funded by drug companies were more likely to show a benefit of treatment It is not known whether other competing interests, such as personal, academic, or political, are associated with authors' conclusions. What this study adds The association did not reflect inadequate methodological quality, greater statistical power, or use of inactive control interventions Personal, academic, and political competing interests were not significantly associated with authors' conclusions. |
Read all Rapid Responses
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
for
instance, interpretation of whether results favour the experimental or
control intervention