This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (16 FEB 2017)

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

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

This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (16 FEB 2017)

[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.