Evaluation of investigator bias in industry-funded clinical trials of latanoprost

Jinapriya, Delan; Anraku, Ayako; Alasbali, Tariq; Trope, Graham E.; Buys, Yvonne M.

doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2011.09.015

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Traditional metrics of professional achievement for both men and women include salary, academic rank, peerreviewed publications, and federal funding. Industry partnership, while sometimes controversial, 8,9 represents another potential source of income, innovation, and collaboration 10 for physicians and can range from speaking engagements to advisory roles to sponsored research. An earlier study 11 analyzed the differences between men and women physicians and industry payments, but to our knowledge, little has been documented about industry ties in the specialty of ophthalmology because of the paucity of information accessible until recently.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Representation of Women With Industry Ties in Ophthalmology

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Women in ophthalmology are growing in number and have made strides in traditional metrics of professional achievement. Professional ties to industry represent another potential means of career advancement, recognition, and income.OBJECTIVE To report the representation of women among ophthalmologists receiving industry remuneration for research, consulting, honoraria, grants, royalties, and faculty/speaker roles. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this observational, retrospective study, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database for payments to ophthalmologists by biomedical companies was reviewed for representation, median payments, and mean payments by women and men for industry relationships in 2013 and 2014. The analysis was performed from July 2015 to November 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome measures were percentage representation of women vs men overall and in industry research, consulting, speaking roles, royalties and licenses, grants, services other than consulting, and honoraria. Secondary outcome measures included mean and median payments from industry to female vs male ophthalmologists. RESULTSIn 2013, 4164 of 21 380 (19.5%) ophthalmologists were women, and of 1204 ophthalmologists analyzed for industry payments, 176 (4.2%) women had industry ties compared with 1028 (6%) men (P < .

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Representation of Women With Industry Ties in Ophthalmology

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evaluated strata included details about the nature of the sponsor (evaluated drug manufacturer vs competitor company) or the nature of the sponsorship (full study sponsorship, collaborative sponsorship with other funders or provision of medications). Three of the seven studies included assessed differences in favourable outcomes based on funder relationship to the product evaluated (eg, manufacturer vs competitor company) 30–32. Only one study found significant results30: this review of 542 psychiatry studies found that a greater percentage of studies sponsored by the drug manufacturer have positive outcomes than those not sponsored by a pharmaceutical company (78% vs 48%) and that research sponsored by a competitor had the lowest rate of favourable findings (28%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three of the seven studies included assessed differences in favourable outcomes based on funder relationship to the product evaluated (eg, manufacturer vs competitor company). [30][31][32] Only one study found significant results 30 : this review of 542 psychiatry studies found that a greater percentage of studies sponsored by the drug manufacturer have positive outcomes than those not sponsored by a pharmaceutical company (78% vs 48%) and that research sponsored by a competitor had the lowest rate of favourable findings (28%). Pairwise comparisons between manufacturer-funded or competitor-funded and non-industry-funded studies were significantly different, but the study reported no indicators of effect size.…”

Section: Industry Funding Variable Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for stratified conflicts of interest policies in research contexts: a methodological review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to conduct a methodological review of research on the effects of conflicts of interest (COIs) in research contexts.DesignMethodological review.Data sourcesOvid.Eligibility criteriaStudies published between 1986 and 2021 conducting quantitative assessments of relationships between industry funding or COI and four target outcomes: positive study results, methodological biases, reporting quality and results–conclusions concordance.Data extraction and synthesisWe assessed key facets of study design: our primary analysis identified whether studies stratified industry funding or COI variables by magnitude (ie, number of COI or disbursement amount), type (employment, travel fees, speaking fees) or if they assessed dichotomous variables (ie, conflict present or absent). Secondary analyses focused on target outcomes and available effects measures.ResultsOf the 167 articles included in this study, a substantial majority (98.2%) evaluated the effects of industry sponsorship. None evaluated associations between funding magnitude and outcomes of interest. Seven studies (4.3%) stratified industry funding based on the mechanism of disbursement or funder relationship to product (manufacturer or competitor). A fifth of the articles (19.8%) assessed the effects of author COI on target outcomes. None evaluated COI magnitude, and three studies (9.1%) stratified COI by disbursement type and/or reporting practices. Participation of an industry-employed author showed the most consistent effect on favourability of results across studies.ConclusionsSubstantial evidence demonstrates that industry funding and COI can bias biomedical research. Evidence-based policies are essential for mitigating the risks associated with COI. Although most policies stratify guidelines for managing COI, differentiating COIs based on the type of relationship or monetary value, this review shows that the available research has generally not been designed to assess the differential risks of COI types or magnitudes. Targeted research is necessary to establish an evidence base that can effectively inform policy to manage COI.

show abstract