The influence of industry sponsorship on the acceptance of abstracts and their publication
ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine whether abstracts with industry sponsorship are more likely to be oral presentations, be published, and the effect of nonspecific author disclosure on identification of sponsorship.
We reviewed abstracts accepted for the urogynecology scientific meeting from 1998-2006 and subanalyzed publication status of studies from 2002-2004.
One hundred twenty-four of 1091 abstracts (11.4%) and 45/376 (11.9%) of oral presentations had industry sponsorship. Industry-sponsored was not significantly more likely than nonindustry sponsored research (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.33-1.36) to be an oral presentation or be published (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.53-1.34). Twelve of 36 studies (34%) were correctly identified as sponsored with the use of a nonspecific author disclosure compared to 22/22 (100%) when sponsorship was disclosed separately.
Researchers without sponsorship can be reassured their work is as likely to be accepted for oral presentation and publication. A policy of full author disclosure makes identification of sponsored studies difficult, and specific sponsorship statement is necessary.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Die Finanzierung klinischer Studien durch die pharmazeutische Industrie ist international wie auch hier in Deutschland ein hinreichend diskutiertes Thema. Es bedarf keiner weiteren Bestätigung, dass die bekannten Unzulänglichkeiten inakzeptabel sind. Ebenso wenig ist aber zu diskutieren, dass die pharmazeutische Industrie und die medizinische Wissenschaft aufeinander angewiesen sind. Weder die Vermarktung der Industrieprodukte noch die Forschung und Lehre der klinischen Wissenschaftler würde ohne diese Kooperation funktionieren. Deshalb benötigen alle Partner konsensfähige und zielführende Vorschläge. Diese zu erarbeiten, ist das Ziel der vorliegenden Diskussion. Um diese Diskussion zu strukturieren, haben wir die folgenden Fragen angeschnitten: Ist den Ergebnissen von Studien, die durch die Industrie finanziert wurden, immer zu misstrauen? Dabei sollte bedacht werden, dass in Deutschland alle Studien, die zur Zulassung eines Arzneimittels führten, durch die Industrie unterstützt wurden. Sind wir uns darüber im Klaren, was durch die explizite und oft berechtigte Kritik erreicht werden soll? Was ist zu veranlassen, um eine höhere Validität der publizierten Daten zu erreichen und wie könnten konsensfähige und zielführende Vorschläge aussehen? Die Diskussion wäre unvollständig, wenn wir uns davor drücken, die entscheidende Frage zu beantworten, ob wir uns der Herausforderung stellen, die Forschung und Lehre mit Finanzierung durch die pharmazeutische Industrie durchzuführen oder diese Art der Kooperation und Förderung ablehnen. The financing of clinical studies by the pharmaceutical industry is a controversial topic both internationally and in here in Germany. The well-known unacceptable shortcomings require no further confirmation. It is, however, indisputable that the pharmaceutical industry and medical science are co-dependent. Neither the marketing of industrial products nor the research and education of clinical scientists could function without this cooperation. Therefore, all partners need suggestions concerning goal orientation and consensus. The aim of this discussion is to formulate just such suggestions. To structure this discussion, we have raised the following questions: Must we always be suspicious of the results of studies financed by the pharmaceutical industry? We have to keep in mind that in Germany all clinical trials leading to approval of a drug were supperted by the industry. What, exactly, do we want to achieve with our explicit and often justified criticism of these studies? What should be done to achieve a higher validity of the published data if we avoid answering the decisive question of whether we accept the challenge of continuing to let research and teaching be financed by the pharmaceutical industry or reject this kind of cooperation and support alltogether. Schlüsselwörter: Finanzierung von Studien–Pharmazeutische Industrie Key Words: Sponsoring of trials–pharmaceutical industry12/2011; 105(12):930-935. DOI:10.1007/s00063-010-1159-7
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper provides recommendations for fair and unbiased relationship between academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry. Real or perceived problems in the relationship between academics and the industry have been the subject of much recent debate. It has been suggested that academic clinicians should sever all links with the industry-a view that is rarely challenged. Academic experts and members of the pharmaceutical industry were invited to an expert consensus meeting to debate this topic. This meeting was organized by the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science. Conflict of interest, competing interest, right and duties of academic scientist, authorship, and staff and student education were discussed. Guidelines for a transparent, ethical, strong, and successful partnership between the academic scientist and the pharmaceutical industry have been provided. The Group support interactions between the industry and clinicians provided that it is transparent and ethical.Osteoporosis International 03/2010; 21(5):713-22. DOI:10.1007/s00198-010-1190-9 · 4.17 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Only 53% and 63% of studies and clinical trials results presented at congresses are published. Company-sponsored trial results are being posted on publicly accessible Web sites. We analyzed the public availability (publication or posting on a Web site) rate, time to publication, and factors predicting public availability of results of studies sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. This was a retrospective cohort study analyzing all studies conducted by GlaxoSmithKline in Spain between 2001 and 2006. Initiation and completion were defined as first participant/first visit and last participant/last visit (or their equivalents). Papers published up to 31 March 2009 were considered. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors predicting public availability of results. The cohort comprised 143 studies (94 clinical trials; of these, 87 were included in international products clinical development plans). Public availability rate was 80% (114/143) for all studies and 78% (73/94) for clinical trials; publication rates were 68% and 61%, respectively. The median time to publication for all studies and trials was 27.3 and 28.4 months, respectively. Study associated to a cancelled project was the only significant factor associated with lower publication rate for all studies [odds ratio (OR) 0.069; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02-024; p < 0.001) and trials (OR 0.075; 95% CI 0.016-0.343; p = 0.001) and a lower public availability rate (OR 0.052; 95% CI 0.007-0.382; p = 0.004) for trial results. Therapy area, sample size, positive trial results, duration of experimental phase, and being a clinical trial did not predict publication or public availability. Eighty percent of studies included in this analysis are publicly available. Web site posting increases public availability rate of clinical trial results from 61% to 78%. Cancellation of projects is the single factor negatively influencing publication and public availability rates.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 11/2010; 66(11):1081-9. DOI:10.1007/s00228-010-0898-y · 2.70 Impact Factor