International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 241–243 | Cite as

Bias in research and conflict of interest: why should we care?

  • H. P. DietzEmail author
Current Opinion/Update

Medical journals are a prime source of professional information for doctors and have a major impact on patient care. Editors and authors are, even more so than the practising clinician, trustees of the public good. Our role is to provide information that is as ‘true’ as we can make it. To this purpose, it is imperative that bias in published research be reduced as far as possible. In fact, “the entire infrastructure of science [...] is built on the fundamental notion of eliminating, or at least controlling for, [...] bias” [1]. In therapeutic medicine, the double-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) is seen as the ‘gold standard’ of bias reduction—developed in response to higher scientific and regulatory standards and to fulfil the precepts of evidence-based medicine.

Unfortunately, it is precisely the therapeutic multicentre RCTs that are subject to the most powerful form of bias in modern medicine because the great majority of such trials are now (as opposed to...


Vioxx Duloxetin Opinion Leader Tolterodine Solifenacin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Coyle SL (2002) Ethics, Human Rights Committee ACoP-A. Physician-industry relations. Part 1: individual physicians. Ann Intern Med 136(5):396–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Korn DMD (2002) Industry, academia, investigator: managing the relationships. Acad Med 77(11):1089–1095 (November)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mathews W (2005) A ghost story: at medical journals, writers paid by industry play big role. Wall Street J A1 (Dec 13)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kassirer J (2006) Physicians on the take. MedGenMed 8(1):74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D et al (2004) Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials (see comment). CMAJ Can Med Assoc J 170(4):477–480Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Montgomery JH, Byerly M, Carmody T et al (2004) An analysis of the effect of funding source in randomized clinical trials of second generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia. Control Clin Trials 25(6):598–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buchkowsky SS, Jewesson PJ (2004) Industry sponsorship and authorship of clinical trials over 20 years. Ann Pharmacother 38(4):579–585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perlis RH, Perlis CS, Wu Y, Hwang C, Joseph M, Nierenberg AA (2005) Industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest in the reporting of clinical trials in psychiatry. Am J Psychiatr 162(10):1957–1960PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goetzsche P (2005) Research integrity and pharmaceutical industry sponsorship. Med J Aust 182(11):549Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibbons R, Landry F, Blouch D et al (1998) A comparison of physicians’ and patients’ attitudes toward pharmaceutical industry gifts. J Gen Intern Med 13:151–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rogers W, Mansfield P, Braunack-Mayer A, Jureidini J (2004) The ethics of pharmaceutical industry relationships with students. Med J Aust 180:411–414PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andersen NV (2006) Gunnar lose vs. Yamanouchi. Ugeskrift for Laeger 168(6):546Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brown AJ (2001) Therapeutic uses of vitamin D analogues. Am J Kidney Dis 38(Suppl 5):S3–S19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS (2002) Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 287(5):612–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moynihan R (2003) The making of a disease: female sexual dysfunction. Br Med J 326:45–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moynihan R, Cassels A (2005) Selling sickness: how drug companies are turning us all into patients. G. Allen, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    N.N. World Association of Medical Editors Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals, 2006 at:, accessed 15.5.06Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    N.N. Uniform Requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2006, at:, accessed 15.5.06Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Korn, D. and S. Ehringhaus, Principles for strengthening the integrity of clinical research. 2006, Public Library of Science at: http://www.plosclinicaltrials.orgGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    N.N. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, 2004, at:, accessed 15.5.06Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    4th Annual Patient Recruitment for Clinical Trials. 2006: New York, at:, accessed 10.6.06Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    The Allhat Officers and Coordinators for the Allhat Collaborative Research Group. Major outcomes in High-Risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs. diuretic. JAMA, 2002(Dec 18): p. 2981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liebermann J, Stroup T, McEvoy J et al (2005) Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in patients with chronic schizophrenia. N Engl J Med 353(12):1209–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Angell M (2004) The truth about the drug companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Curfman G, Morrissey S, Drazen J (2006) Expression of concern reaffirmed. N Engl J Med 354(11):1193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moynihan R (2002) Alosetron: a case study in regulatory capture, or a victory for patients’ rights? Br Med J 325:592–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lievre M (2002) Alosetron for irritable bowel syndrome. Br Med J 325:555–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Horton R (2001) Lotronex and the FDA: a fatal erosion of integrity. Lancet 357:1544–1545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A, DeAngelis CD (2005) Reporting conflicts of interest, financial aspects of research, and role of sponsors in funded studies. JAMA 294:110–111 (July 6)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further reading

  1. 1.
    Kassirer JP (2005) On the take. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krimsky S (2003) Science in the private interest. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Angell M (2004) The truth about the drug companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moynihan R, Cassels A (2005) Selling sickness: how drug companies turning us all into patients. G. Allen, SydneyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Urogynecology Journal 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nepean Clinical School, Nepean HospitalUniversity of SydneyPenrith NSWAustralia

Personalised recommendations