The Publication of Sponsored Symposiums in Medical Journals

Bero, Lisa; Galbraith, Alison A.; Rennie, Drummond

doi:10.1056/nejm199210153271606

Cited by 144 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…21 For-profit organizations also are more likely to support favorable review articles, journal supplements, and promotional materials on an "author-for-hire" basis. 22,23 Finally, it has been shown that Table 3. Total Number of Citations per Publication According to Funding Source Stratified by Potential Confounders financial relationships between industry and scientific investigators are associated with an increased likelihood of a pro-industry conclusion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Differential Citation Rates of Major Cardiovascular Clinical Trials According to Source of Funding

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-Prior work indicates that therapeutic trials funded by for-profit organizations are more likely to report positive findings than trials funded by not-for-profit organizations. What impact, if any, funding source has on subsequent dissemination of trial data is uncertain. To address this issue, we used the number of citations per publication per year to assess differences in trial dissemination according to funding source. Overall, the median number of citations per publication per year was 46 for trials funded exclusively by for-profit organizations, 37 for trials jointly funded, and 29 for trials funded by not-for-profit organizations (Pϭ0.0007). Higher citation rates for trials funded by for-profit organizations were consistently observed in analyses stratified by journal and various trial design features and were most striking when the new intervention was favored over the standard of care; in this subgroup, the median number of citations per publication per year was 52 for trials funded by for-profit organizations compared with 25 for trials funded by not-for-profit organizations (Pϭ0.0006).In marked contrast, in analyses limited to trials in which the new intervention was significantly worse than the standard of care, an inverse pattern was observed with fewer citations per publication per year for trials funded by for-profit organizations compared with not-for-profit organizations (33 versus 41; Pϭ0.048). Higher citation rates were observed for industry-funded trials than for federally funded trials even when the trials dealt with similar issues and were published back-to-back in the same journal. Conclusions-Dissemination of clinical trial results is important for clinical practice but appears to be biased in favor of for-profit entities. Consideration should be given to more extensive promotion of clinical trial results that are funded by not-for-profit organizations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Differential Citation Rates of Major Cardiovascular Clinical Trials According to Source of Funding

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…29,30 Our access to the extensive libraries and interlibrary loan requests may not be representative of a typical clinician's access, and our repeated efforts to obtain documents may be greater than those of a practising clinician. Finally, some unconfirmed references may have been due to errors in the citation listing in the ad.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The availability of references and the sponsorship of original research cited in pharmaceutical advertisements

Cooper¹

2005

Canadian Medical Association Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…He continued, more pointedly, that "as editors we delight in the revenue from their adventures in competitive advertising, even as we seek to put restraints on its ultrapersuasiveness and keep it within the bounds that medical propriety and a sense of service to humanity have set." Yet constant vigilance has been required to maintain firewalls between promotion and education (1992).…”

Section: Challenges Then and Nowmentioning

confidence: 99%