Conflict of Interest in the Debate over Calcium-Channel Antagonists

Stelfox, Henry T.; Chua, Grace; O’Rourke, Keith; Detsky, Allan S.

doi:10.1056/nejm199801083380206

Cited by 553 publications

(271 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

254

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another limitation is that our study cannot offer generalizability with respect to the incidence of industry financial relationships of authors of other CPG because the present study did not examine all of the APA’s CPG. However, other researchers have shown that there is a strong association between authors’ published opinions of products and their financial relationships with the manufacturers of those products and competing ones [21]. Also, the data on CPG authors’ associations with the pharmaceutical industry are atemporal because existing disclosure policies do not consistently require that authors specify the timing of their financial relationships with industry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflicts of Interest and Disclosure in the American Psychiatric Association’s Clinical Practice Guidelines

Cosgrove

Bursztajn²,

Krimsky

et al. 2009

Psychother Psychosom

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are developed, endorsed, and disseminated through professional medical organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association (APA) as the standard of care for health care providers. Because of their influence, it is critical that CPG are based on objective data, unprejudiced by stakeholder groups, and that any financial associations between authors of CPG and the pharmaceutical industry are made transparent. The present study examined the degree and type of financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry held by authors of 3 major CPG. Methods: By using multimodal screening techniques, we investigated the financial relationships to the pharmaceutical companies of 20 work group members who authored the guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder. Results: Eighteen CPG authors (90%) had at least 1 financial tie to the pharmaceutical industry. All of the CPG authors who had industry relationships had financial relationships with companies whose products were specifically considered or included in the guideline they authored. The leading categories of financial interest held by CPG authors were research funding (77.7%), consultancies (72.2%), members of corporate boards (44.4%), and collaborators in industry-funded studies (44.4%). Conclusions: Ninety percent of the authors of 3 major CPG in psychiatry had financial ties to companies that manufacture drugs which were explicitly or implicitly identified in the guidelines as recommended therapies for the respective mental illnesses. None of the financial associations of the authors were disclosed in the CPG.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflicts of Interest and Disclosure in the American Psychiatric Association’s Clinical Practice Guidelines

Cosgrove

Bursztajn²,

Krimsky

et al. 2009

Psychother Psychosom

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As many as 10–20% of fluoxetine trials go unpublished, a general problem in studies of all antidepressant clinical trials [17]. There is evidence that participation in industry-funded research may create a conflict of interest [18]that is associated with the increased likelihood of results favoring study drugs [19, 20]and with significant delays in publication, i.e. 28% of the time in an attempt to withhold undesirable results [21].…”

Section: Belief No 1: Antidepressants Are Conclusively More Effectivmentioning

confidence: 99%

Raising Questions about Antidepressants

Antonuccio

Danton

DeNelsky

et al. 1999

Psychother Psychosom

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antidepressant medication has apparently become the most popular treatment for depression in the USA. Several beliefs about the efficacy of antidepressant medications prevail among mental health professionals and the public. This paper explores relevant research data and raises questions about these beliefs. Many of the common beliefs about these medications are not adequately supported by scientific data. The following issues are raised: (1) industry-funded research studies which result in negative findings sometimes do not get published; (2) placebo washout procedures may bias results in some studies; (3) there are serious questions about the integrity of the double-blind procedure; (4) the ‘true’ antidepressant drug effect in adults appears to be relatively small; (5) there is minimal evidence of antidepressant efficacy in children; (6) side effects are fairly common even with the newer antidepressants; (7) combining medications raises the risk for more serious complications; (8) all antidepressants can cause withdrawal symptoms; (9) genetic influences on unipolar depression appear to be weaker than environmental influences; (10) biochemical theories of depression are as yet unproven; (11) biological markers specific for depression have been elusive; (12) dosage and plasma levels of antidepressants have been minimally related to treatment outcome; (13) preliminary evidence suggests that patients who improve with cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy show similar biological changes as those who respond to medication, and (14) the evidence suggests that psychological interventions are at least as effective as pharmacotherapy in treating depression, even if severe, especially when patient-rated measures are used and long-term follow-up is considered.

show abstract

“…In human health, several investigations show strong associations between the source of funding and the conclusions of research articles 120, 121, 122, 123. To our knowledge, there are no similar associations detected in observational studies conducted in veterinary science.…”

Section: Transparency 22(a) Give the Source Of Funding And The Rolmentioning

confidence: 72%

Explanation and Elaboration Document for the STROBE‐Vet Statement: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology—Veterinary Extension

O’Connor

Sargeant

Dohoo

et al. 2016

Veterinary Internal Medicne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement was first published in 2007 and again in 2014. The purpose of the original STROBE was to provide guidance for authors, reviewers, and editors to improve the comprehensiveness of reporting; however, STROBE has a unique focus on observational studies. Although much of the guidance provided by the original STROBE document is directly applicable, it was deemed useful to map those statements to veterinary concepts, provide veterinary examples, and highlight unique aspects of reporting in veterinary observational studies. Here, we present the examples and explanations for the checklist items included in the STROBE‐Vet statement. Thus, this is a companion document to the STROBE‐Vet statement methods and process document (JVIM_14575 “Methods and Processes of Developing the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology—Veterinary (STROBE‐Vet) Statement” undergoing proofing), which describes the checklist and how it was developed.

show abstract

Conflict of Interest in the Debate over Calcium-Channel Antagonists

Cited by 553 publications

References 63 publications

Conflicts of Interest and Disclosure in the American Psychiatric Association’s Clinical Practice Guidelines

Conflicts of Interest and Disclosure in the American Psychiatric Association’s Clinical Practice Guidelines

Raising Questions about Antidepressants

Explanation and Elaboration Document for the STROBE‐Vet Statement: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology—Veterinary Extension

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About