The relationship between risk of bias criteria, research outcomes, and study sponsorship in a cohort of preclinical thiazolidinedione animal studies: a meta‐analysis

Abstract

IntroductionThere is little evidence regarding the influence of conflicts of interest on preclinical research. This study examines whether industry sponsorship is associated with increased risks of bias and/or effect sizes of outcomes in published preclinical thiazolidinedione (TZD) studies.MethodsWe identified preclinical TZD studies published between January 1, 1965, and November 14, 2012. Coders independently extracted information on study design criteria aimed at reducing bias, results for all relevant outcomes, sponsorship source and investigator financial ties from the 112 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The average standardized mean difference (SMD) across studies was calculated for plasma glucose (efficacy outcome) and weight gain (harm outcome). In subgroup analyses, TZD outcomes were assessed by sponsorship source and risk of bias criteria.ResultsSeven studies were funded by industry alone, 17 studies funded by both industry and non‐industry, 49 studies funded by non‐industry alone and 39 studies had no disclosures. None of the studies used sample size calculations, intention‐to‐treat analyses, blinding of investigators or concealment of allocation. Most studies reported favourable results (88 of 112) and conclusions (95 of 112) supporting TZD use. Efficacy estimates were significantly larger in six studies sponsored by industry alone (−3.41; 95% CI −5.21, −1.53; I2 = 93%) versus 42 studies sponsored by non‐industry sources (−0.97; 95% CI −1.37, −0.56; I2 = 81%; p‐value = 0.01). Harms estimates were significantly larger in four studies sponsored by industry alone (5.00; 95% CI 1.22, 8.77; I2 = 93%) versus 38 studies sponsored by non‐industry sources (0.30; 95% CI −0.08, 0.68; I2 = 79%; p‐value = 0.02). TZD efficacy and harms did not differ by disclosure of financial COIs or risks of bias.ConclusionsIndustry‐sponsored TZD animal studies have exaggerated efficacy and harms outcomes compared with studies funded by non‐industry sources. There was poor reporting of COIs.

Relationship between Research Outcomes and Risk of Bias, Study Sponsorship, and Author Financial Conflicts of Interest in Reviews of the Effects of Artificially Sweetened Beverages on Weight Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Reviews

“…Another possible explanation for the conflicting results of studies of artificially sweetened beverages may be bias related to funding source. Industry sponsorship of both original research and review articles is associated with favorable outcomes for the sponsor in a variety of areas including clinical drug trials [ 29 , 30 ], studies of the health effects of tobacco [ 31 , 32 ], medical procedures [ 33 , 34 ] and pre-clinical animal studies [ 35 , 36 ]. The observed bias related to funding is not explained by other risks of bias in the studies (for example sequence generation, concealment of allocation, or loss to follow-up).…”

Cross-centre replication of suppressed burrowing behaviour as an ethologically relevant pain outcome measure in the rat: a prospective multicentre study

“…Exclusions could also result in attrition bias, an issue particularly important for studies using relatively small sample sizes. 1 , 13 , 24 …”

Evidence from Toxicology: The Most Essential Science for Prevention

“…For nonpharmaceutical chemicals, including food additives, current toxicological methods and practices do not resolve controversies because of their nontransparent procedures and potential for conflict of interest. Too often, decisions are based on information provided by and evaluated by parties with financial ties to the products without public disclosure ( Abdel-Sattar et al 2014 ; Neltner et al 2013 ). As a consequence, debates over the hazards of many of these agents—already in production and use—go on for decades, with controversies among regulatory agencies within and among countries, states, and stakeholders.…”