Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 155–158 | Cite as

Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials

  • Richard A. Davidson
Original Articles

Abstract

Because of recent concerns about conflicts of interest and published research, the author analyzed 107 controlled clinical trials. Studies were classified as favoring either a new therapy or a traditional therapy, and as being supported by a pharmaceutical manufacturer or as being generally supported. Seventy-one per cent of the trials favored new therapies; 43% of these were funded by pharmaceutical firms. Of the 31 trials favoring traditional therapy, only four (13%) were supported by a pharmaceutical firm. There was a statistically significant association between the source of funding and the outcome of the study (p=0.002). Few trials supported by pharmaceutical manufacturers favored traditional therapy; some reasons for this finding may include selection of drugs likely to be proven efficacious, Type II errors (false-negative studies), and fear of discontinuation of funding should such studies be submitted. Important clinical information may be lost if negative studies are not published.

Key words

clinical trials funding pharmaceutical manufacturer support 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Clinical research in general medical journals. N Engl J Med 1979;301:180–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kunin CM. Clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. Ann Intern Med 1978;89 (5 Pt 2 Suppl):842–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Musher DM. Antibiotics: the medium is the message. Rev Infect Dis 1983;5:809–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kass EH. Seduction in a grand hotel. Rev Infect Dis 1983;5:973–4.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kunin CM. The relation between clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. Rev Infect Dis 1984;6:129–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soffer A. Hazards in publication of proceedings. Arch Intern Med 1982;142:2074–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rochmis PG. Seminars for physicians. JAMA 1982;248:1580–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Relman AS. Dealing with conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med 1984;310:1182–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Relman AS. Dealing with conflicts of interest (correspondence). N Engl J Med 1984;311:405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sprung CL, Carallis PV, Marcial EH, et al. The effects of high-dose corticosteroids in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med 1984;311:1137–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paradise JL, Bluestone CD, Bachman RZ, et al. Efficacy of tonsillectomy for recurrent throat infection in severly affected children. Results of parallel randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1984;310:674–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sclerotherapy after first variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis. A randomized muticenter trial. The Copenhagen Esophageal Varices Sclerotherapy Project. N Engl J Med 1984;311:1594–600Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Whorwell PJ, Prior A, Faragher EB. Controlled trial of hypnotherapy in the treatment of severe refractory irritable-bowel syndrome. Lancet 1984;2:1232–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cade R, Mars D, Wagemaker H, et al. Effect of aerobic exercise training on patients with systemic arterial hypertension. Am J Med 1984;77:785–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bow EJ, Louie TJ, Riben PD, McNaughton RD, Harding GK, Ronald AR. Randomized controlled trial comparing trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim for infection prophylaxis in hospitalized granulocytopenic patients. Am J Med 1984;76:223–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bantle JP, Hunninghake DB, Frantz ID, Kuba K, Mariash CN, Oppenheimer JH. Comparison of effectiveness of thyrotropin-suppressive doses ofd- andl-thryoxine in treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Am J Med 1984;77:475–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holloway JJ, Smith CR, Moore RD, Feroli ER, Lietman PS. Comparative cost effectiveness of gentamicin and tobramycin. Ann Intern Med 1984;101:764–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. Br J Cancer 1976;34:585–612PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H, Kuebler RR. The importance of beta, the Type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. N Engl J Med 1978;299:690–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shapiro S. The decision to publish. Ethical dilemmas. J Chron Dis 1985;38:365–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Research and Education in Primary Care Internal Medicine 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard A. Davidson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of FloridaGainesville

Personalised recommendations