Objective To examine the association between the presence of individual principal investigators’ financial ties to the manufacturer of the study drug and the trial’s outcomes after accounting for source of research funding.Design Cross sectional study of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Setting Studies published in “core clinical” journals, as identified by Medline, between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013.Participants Random sample of RCTs focused on drug efficacy.Main outcome measure Association between financial ties of principal investigators and study outcome.Results A total of 190 papers describing 195 studies met inclusion criteria. Financial ties between principal investigators and the pharmaceutical industry were present in 132 (67.7%) studies. Of 397 principal investigators, 231 (58%) had financial ties and 166 (42%) did not. Of all principal investigators, 156 (39%) reported advisor/consultancy payments, 81 (20%) reported speakers’ fees, 81 (20%) reported unspecified financial ties, 52 (13%) reported honorariums, 52 (13%) reported employee relationships, 52 (13%) reported travel fees, 41 (10%) reported stock ownership, and 20 (5%) reported having a patent related to the study drug. The prevalence of financial ties of principal investigators was 76% (103/136) among positive studies and 49% (29/59) among negative studies. In unadjusted analyses, the presence of a financial tie was associated with a positive study outcome (odds ratio 3.23, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.1). In the primary multivariate analysis, a financial tie was significantly associated with positive RCT outcome after adjustment for the study funding source (odds ratio 3.57 (1.7 to 7.7). The secondary analysis controlled for additional RCT characteristics such as study phase, sample size, country of first authors, specialty, trial registration, study design, type of analysis, comparator, and outcome measure. These characteristics did not appreciably affect the relation between financial ties and study outcomes (odds ratio 3.37, 1.4 to 7.9).Conclusions Financial ties of principal investigators were independently associated with positive clinical trial results. These findings may be suggestive of bias in the evidence base.
ObjectivesTo determine the relationship between manufacturer-related financial ties among investigators of published drug trials and rates of discrepant registered and published primary trial outcomes.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingHuman subjects drug trials published in ‘core clinical’ MEDLINE journals in 2013.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary study endpoint was the presence of a prospectively registered, clearly defined primary outcome that matched the published primary outcome for each included trial. Secondary outcomes included assessments of registration timing and quality, and the impact of outcome discrepancies between registration and publication on the statistical significance of the included trials.ResultsOf 192 included trials, 134 (70%) were positive and 58 (30%) were negative. Financial ties were present between first or last authors and drug manufacturers for 130 trials (68%), of which 78% were positive, versus 53% of trials with no financial ties that were positive. Clearly defined, prospectively registered outcomes that matched the published outcomes were present in just 76 of the 192 trials (40%). After adjusting for study start date and sample size, the observed relationship between investigator financial ties and the presence of a match between prospectively registered and published primary outcomes was of borderline statistical significance (OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.998 to 4.50). Studies with financial ties present were more likely than studies without ties to have been prospectively registered (78%vs48%, P<0.001) and were more likely to have prospectively registered a clearly defined primary outcome(62%vs35%, P<0.001).ConclusionsLess than half of the trials in this cohort were prospectively registered with a clear primary outcome that was consistent with the primary outcome reported in the published manuscript. The presence of investigator financial ties was associated with higher quality registration practices, though this association diminished after adjusting for factors that impact registration quality.
BackgroundThe harmful effects of marijuana on health and in particular cardiovascular health are understudied. To develop such knowledge, an efficient method of developing an informative cohort of marijuana users and non-users is needed.MethodsWe identified patients with a diagnosis of coronary artery disease using ICD-9 codes who were seen in the San Francisco VA in 2015. We imported these patients’ medical record notes into an informatics platform that facilitated text searches. We categorized patients into those with evidence of marijuana use in the past 12 months and patients with no such evidence, using the following text strings: “marijuana”, “mjx”, and “cannabis”. We randomly selected 51 users and 51 non-users based on this preliminary classification, and sent a recruitment letter to 97 of these patients who had contact information available. Patients were interviewed on marijuana use and domains related to cardiovascular health. Data on marijuana use collected from the medical record was compared to data collected as part of the interview.ResultsThe interview completion rate was 71%. Among the 35 patients identified by text strings as having used marijuana in the previous year, 15 had used marijuana in the past 30 days (positive predictive value = 42.9%). The probability of use in the past month increased from 8.8% to 42.9% in people who have these keywords in their medical record compared to those who did not have these terms in their medical record.ConclusionMethods that combine text search strategies for participant recruitment with health interviews provide an efficient approach to developing prospective cohorts that can be used to study the health effects of marijuana.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.