Methodology Review

You have free access to this content

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

  1. Andreas Lundh1,*,
  2. Sergio Sismondo2,
  3. Joel Lexchin3,
  4. Octavian A Busuioc2,
  5. Lisa Bero4

Editorial Group: Cochrane Methodology Review Group

Published Online: 12 DEC 2012

Assessed as up-to-date: 30 SEP 2010

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2


How to Cite

Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 12. Art. No.: MR000033. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Rigshospitalet, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark

  2. 2

    Queen's University, Department of Philosophy, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

  3. 3

    York University, School of Health Policy and Management, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

  4. 4

    University of California San Francisco, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Institute for Health Policy Studies, San Francisco, California, USA

*Andreas Lundh, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 7811, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark. al@cochrane.dk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions), comment added to review
  2. Published Online: 12 DEC 2012

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Results: Industry sponsored versus non-industry sponsored studies, Outcome 1 Number of studies with favorable efficacy results.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Results: Industry sponsored versus non-industry sponsored studies, Outcome 2 Number of studies with favorable harms results.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Results: Industry sponsorship by test treatment company versus sponsorship by comparator treatment company, Outcome 1 Number of studies with favorable test treatment efficacy results.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Conclusions: industry sponsored versus non-industry sponsored studies, Outcome 1 Number of studies with favorable conclusions.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Conclusions: Industry sponsorship by test treatment company versus sponsorship by comparator treatment company, Outcome 1 Number of studies with favorable test treatment conclusions.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Risk of bias: industry sponsored versus non-industry sponsored studies, Outcome 1 Number of studies with low risk of bias from sequence generation.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Risk of bias: industry sponsored versus non-industry sponsored studies, Outcome 2 Number of studies with low risk of bias from concealment of allocation.
[Analysis 5.3]
Analysis 5.3. Comparison 5 Risk of bias: industry sponsored versus non-industry sponsored studies, Outcome 3 Number of studies with low risk of bias from blinding.
[Analysis 5.4]
Analysis 5.4. Comparison 5 Risk of bias: industry sponsored versus non-industry sponsored studies, Outcome 4 Number of studies with low risk of bias from loss to follow-up.
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 Concordance between study results and conclusions: industry sponsored versus non-industry sponsored studies, Outcome 1 Number of studies with concordant study results and conclusions.
[Analysis 7.1]
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Subgroup analysis, Outcome 1 Number of studies with favorable efficacy results.
[Analysis 7.2]
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Subgroup analysis, Outcome 2 Number of studies with favorable conclusions.
[Analysis 7.3]
Analysis 7.3. Comparison 7 Subgroup analysis, Outcome 3 Number of studies with favorable conclusions.
[Analysis 7.4]
Analysis 7.4. Comparison 7 Subgroup analysis, Outcome 4 Number of studies with favorable efficacy results.
[Analysis 7.5]
Analysis 7.5. Comparison 7 Subgroup analysis, Outcome 5 Number of studies with favorable conclusions.
[Analysis 8.1]
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 1 Number of studies with favorable efficacy results, sponsorship recoded.
[Analysis 8.2]
Analysis 8.2. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 2 Number of studies with favorable conclusions, sponsorship recoded.
[Analysis 8.3]
Analysis 8.3. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 3 Number of studies with low risk of bias from sequence generation, sponsorship recoded.
[Analysis 8.4]
Analysis 8.4. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 4 Number of studies with low risk of bias from concealment of allocation, sponsorship recoded.
[Analysis 8.5]
Analysis 8.5. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 5 Number of studies with low risk of bias from blinding, sponsorship recoded.
[Analysis 8.6]
Analysis 8.6. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 6 Number of studies with favorable efficacy results, analysis adjusted for confounders.
[Analysis 8.7]
Analysis 8.7. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 7 Number of studies with favorable conclusions, analysis adjusted for confounders.
[Analysis 8.8]
Analysis 8.8. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 8 Number of studies with favorable efficacy results, random-effects model.
[Analysis 8.9]
Analysis 8.9. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 9 Number of studies with favorable harms results, random-effects model.
[Analysis 8.10]
Analysis 8.10. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 10 Number of studies with favorable test treatment efficacy results, random-effects model.
[Analysis 8.11]
Analysis 8.11. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 11 Number of studies with favorable test treatment conclusions, random-effects model.
[Analysis 8.12]
Analysis 8.12. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 12 Number of studies with low risk of bias from loss to follow-up, random-effects model.