Studies included in a systematic review of the literature on conflict of interest owing to authors’/investigators’ affiliation with industry associated with their research
| Study | Year | Discipline | Purpose | Source | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leopold et al. (15) | 2003 | Orthopedic | Assess potential association between research outcome and external factors, including industry funding | Article review in 3 orthopedic journals published between July 1999 and June 2000 | Industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to report positive outcome than non–industry funded studies |
| Okike et al. (16) | 2007 | Orthopedic | Investigate the association between different types of conflict of interest and study outcome | Podium presentation review at a national orthopedic annual meeting in 2001 and 2002 | Authors with a conflict of interest (e.g., royalties, stock options, consulting/employee status) were more likely to report positive outcome |
| Bhandari et al. (17) | 2004 | Surgery | Determine whether association between industry funding and conclusions are generalized to surgical specialties | RCTs published between January 1999 and June 2001 in 8 surgical and 5 medical journals | Industry funding was significantly associated with statistically significant proindustry results; variations in study quality or sample size did not explain proindustry findings |
| Zuckerman et al. (4) | 2004 | Orthopedic | Determine the frequency and type of self-reported conflict of interest between orthopedic research and industry | Final program from a national orthopedic annual meeting in 1985, 1988, 1992, 1997, 1999 and 2002 | Industrial research support increased significantly between 1995 and 2002; the proportion of support to individual authors rather than to institutions increased signficantly |
| Ezzet (18) | 2003 | Orthopedic | Define the prevalence of commercial funding in adult lower extremity research and correlation of funding with reported outcomes | Presentations at 2002 national orthopedic meeting and journal articles published in 2001 in 3 orthopedic journals | Research sponsored by industry was more likely to report a proindustry outcome than studies funded independently |
| Lynch et al. (19) | 2007 | Orthopedic | Determine if nonscientific variables, including commercial funding, are associated with positive outcomes and acceptance for publication | Manuscripts on hip and knee arthroplasty submitted to JBJS from January 2004 to June 2005, excluding resubmissions, reviews, case reports, editorials and basic science studies | Industry-funded studies were not more likely to conclude a positive outcome, and positive outcome was not more likely to be published; however, non– positive outcome studies were of higher quality, which suggests an insidious bias against publication; industry-funded studies were more likely to by published |
| Shah et al. (20) | 2005 | Spine | Evaluate association between industry funding and positive research finding | Articles published in Spine from January 2002 to July 2003 | Industry-funded studies demonstrated a greater likelihood to report positive results than studies funded independently |
| Cunningham et al. (21) | 2007 | Orthopedic | Assess potential association between nonscientific factors (funding source), scientific factors (study design) and positive study outcome | Abstracts presented at a national orthopedic annual meeting in 2004 | Commercial funding was associated with positive outcomes, but those studies did not have better designs or larger samples than non–industry funded studies |
JBJS = Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery; RCT = randomized controlled trial.