Manufacturer Support and Outcome

Mandelkern, Marshal

doi:10.4088/jcp.v60n0210a

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Statistical significance for this finding was reported in eight of the 13 studies,13 14 16 19 20 38 40 41 and in another two there was a trend towards statistical significance 18 22. These studies covered a wide range of diseases, such as osteoarthritis of the knee,13 18 multiple myeloma,20 various psychiatric problems,32 40 Alzheimer's disease,30 and venous thromboembolism,39 and a wide range of drugs, such as tacrine,30 clozapine,40 third generation oral contraceptives,39 erythropoietin,19 antidepressants,22 and topical glucocorticosteroids 38. One study that found no difference looked at the outcome of trials of treatment for HIV and associated complications and in this case the trials were monitored by the National Institutes of Health 24.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review

Lexchin

Bero

Djulbegoviĉ

et al. 2003

BMJ

1,832

1,091

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Eleven papers mentioned that some trials were funded by industry but offered 22 further definition of industry funding 17 18 22 24–26 28 34 36 39 40. In the other 15 papers the definition varied from a statement acknowledging industry funding in the article12 32 to a more comprehensive definition 35…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review

Lexchin

Bero

Djulbegoviĉ

et al. 2003

BMJ

1,832

1,091

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, studies have observed that industry-funded drug trials are more likely to report in favour of (the sponsored) treatment than research that is not funded by a commercial organisation. 155,156 Research has shown that commercially funded studies are associated with a shorter duration of follow-up, 157 more frequent use of non-active comparators 158,159 and lower risk of bias. 156,160,161 In the area of chronic wounds there are few data on the prevalence of industry-funded trials or the influence of industry funding on trial design.…”

Section: Service User and Provider Perspectives (Worktream 2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Wounds research for patient benefit: a 5-year programme of research

Cullum

Buckley

Dumville

et al. 2016

Programme Grants Appl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundComplex wounds are those that heal by secondary intention and include lower-limb ulcers, pressure ulcers and some surgical wounds. The care of people with complex wounds is costly, with care mainly being delivered by community nurses. There is a lack of current, high-quality data regarding the numbers and types of people affected, care received and outcomes achieved.ObjectivesTo (1) assess how high-quality data about complex wounds can be captured effectively for use in both service planning and research while ensuring integration with current clinical data collection systems and minimal impact on staff time; (2) investigate whether or not a clinical register of people with complex wounds could give valid estimates of treatment effects, thus reducing dependence on large-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs); (3) identify the most important research questions and outcomes for people with complex wounds from the perspectives of patients, carers and health-care professionals; (4) evaluate the potential contributions to decision-making of individual patient data meta-analysis and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis; and (5) complete and update systematic reviews in topic areas of high priority.MethodsTo meet objectives 1 and 2 we conducted a prevalence survey and developed and piloted a longitudinal disease register. A consultative, deliberative method and in-depth interviews were undertaken to address objective 3. To address objectives 4 and 5 we conducted systematic reviews including mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.ResultsFrom the prevalence survey we estimated the point prevalence of all complex wounds to be 1.47 per 1000 people (95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.56 per 1000 people). Pressure ulcers and venous leg ulcers were the most common type of complex wound. A total of 195 people with a complex wound were recruited to a complex wounds register pilot. We established the feasibility of correctly identifying, extracting and transferring routine NHS data into the register; however, participant recruitment, data collection and tracking individual wounds in people with multiple wounds were challenging. Most patients and health professionals regarded healing of the wound as the primary treatment goal. Patients were greatly troubled by the social consequences of having a complex wound. Complex wounds are frequently a consequence of, and are themselves, a long-term condition but treatment is usually focused on healing the wound. Consultative, deliberative research agenda setting on pressure ulcer prevention and treatment with patients, carers and clinicians yielded 960 treatment uncertainties and a top 12 list of research priorities. Of 167 RCTs of complex wound treatments in a systematic review of study quality, 41% did not specify a primary outcome and the overall quality of the conduct and reporting of the research was poor. Mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis in areas of high priority identified that matrix hydrocolloid dressings had the highest probability (70%) of being the most effective dressing for diabetic foot ulcers, whereas a hyaluronan fleece dressing had the highest probability (35%) of being the most effective dressing for venous ulcers; however, the quality of this evidence was low and uncertainty is high.ConclusionsComplex wounds are common and costly with a poor evidence base for many frequent clinical decisions. There is little routine clinical data collection in community nursing. A prospective complex wounds register has the potential to both assist clinical decision-making and provide important research evidence but would be challenging to implement without investment in information technology in NHS community services. Future work should focus on developing insights into typical wound healing trajectories, identifying factors that are prognostic for healing and assessing the cost-effectiveness of selected wound treatments.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

show abstract

“…Publication bias has been well documented [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. However, several other selection biases have been reported in addition to publication bias.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These include: larger sample size [6,8,12,15], presentation at a scientific meeting [11,13,15,17], result favoring a new therapy [6,12], pharmaceutical industry support [5,6,17,18], multicenter status [13], English language [20], and clinical field of the topic [16]. Publication bias has been documented mainly in the primary literature (the literature that directly reports research findings) [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] and in review articles [21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%