Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intérêts et conflits d’intérêts: le point de vue d’un expert

Interests and conflicts of interests: an expert opinion

  • Synthèse / Review Article
  • Published:
Oncologie

Abstract

An increasing part of funding in research comes from industries. Many studies show that the source of funding has a strong impact on the results and the presentation of the studies, in all the fields of biomedical research. There are multiple, nonexclusive, mechanisms, including the questions addressed by the studies, the study quality, and publication biases. This first phenomenon is amplified by the impact of the funding source on the citation rate, through various citation biases. However, the studies do not rule out the veracity of the published facts, but highlight the issues of the pertinence of the addressed questions, the communication, and the perception of the results. Since around 10 years, most of the expertise agencies implemented stringent rules for the management of competing interests and many proposals have been made for research. A part of the solution comes from a better knowledge of this phenomenon and its management at all the levels of the development and use of scientific research.

Résumé

Une part de plus en plus importante du financement de la recherche repose sur des fonds privés. De nombreuses études démontrentque la source de financement a un impact certain sur les résultats des recherches biomédicales et leur présentation, quel que soit le domaine concerné. Les causes en sont multiples et non exclusives et concernent aussi bien la nature des questions étudiées, la qualité des études que les biais de publication ou ceux liés à l’arrêt prématuré des études. Ce premier phénomène est amplifié par un impact de la source de financement sur le taux de citation des études à travers divers biais de citation. Les études ne remettent pas en cause la véracité des faits publiés, mais plutôt leur pertinence, leur communication et leur perception. Depuis une dizaine d’années, les systèmes d’expertise ont intégré la gestion des intérêts et des conflits éventuels qui peuvent en découler et de nombreuses propositions ont été faites pour la recherche. Une partie des solutions passe par une meilleure connaissance du phénomène et par sa prise en compte à tous les niveaux du développement et de l’utilisation des connaissances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Références

  1. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL (2003) Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials. A reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? J Am Med Assoc 290: 921–928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anraku A, Jin YP, Trope GE, Buys YM (2009) Survey of conflict-of-interest disclosure policies of ophthalmology journals. Ophthalmology 116: 1093–1096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bandhari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, et al. (2004) Association between industry funding and statistically significant proindustry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ 170: 477–480

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barden J, Derry S, McQuay HJ, et al. (2006) Bias from industry trial funding? A framework, a suggested approach, and a negative result. Pain 121: 207–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289: 454–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bero LA, Galbraith BA, Rennie D (1992) The publication of sponsored symposiums in medical journals. N Engl J Med 327: 1135–1140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bero LA, Glantz S, Hong MK (2005) The limits of competing interest disclosures. Tob Control 14: 118–126

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Booth CM, Cescon DW, Wang L, et al. (2008) Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades. J Clin Oncol 33: 5458–5464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, et al. (2008) Expending the consort statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Int Med 148: 295–309

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown A, Kraft D, Schmitz SM, et al. (2006) Association of industry sponsorship to published outcomes in gastrointestinal clinical research. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 4: 1445–1451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Buchkowsky SS, Jewesson PJ (2004) Industry sponsorship and authorship of clinical trials over 20 years. Ann Pharmacother 38: 579–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chaudhry S, Schroter S, Smith R, Morris J (2002) Does declaration of competing interests affect readers’ perception? A randomised trial. BMJ 325: 1391–1392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS (2002) Relationship between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 287: 612–617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chren MM, Seth Landefeld C (1994) Physicians’ behavior and their interactions with drug companies. A controlled study of physicians who requested additions to a hospital drug formulary. JAMA 271: 684–689

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Clifford TJ, Barrowman NJ, Moher D (2002) Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study. BMC Health Serv Res 2: 18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI (2000) Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. New Engl J Med 342: 1887–1892

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Conen D, Torres J, Ridker PM (2008) Differential citation rates of major cardiovascular clinical trials according to source of funding. A survey from 2000 to 2005. Circulation 118: 1321–1327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cunningham MR, Warme WJ, Schaad DC, et al. (2007) Industry-funded studies not associated with better design or larger size. Clin Orthop Relat Res 457: 235–241

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cuzick J, Howell A, Forbes J (2005) Early stopping of clinical trials. Breast Cancer Res 7: 181–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dana J, Loewenstein G (2003) A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA 290: 252–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, et al. (2000) The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 356: 635–638

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fry-Revere S, Malmstrom DB (2009) More regulation of industry-supported biomedical research: are we asking the right questions? J Law Med Ethics 37: 420–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Golder S, Loke YK (2008) Is there evidence for biased reporting of published adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies? Br J Clin Pharmacol 66: 767–773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Johansen HK, et al. (2006) Constraints on publication rights in industry-initiated clinical trials. JAMA 295: 1645–1646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Greco D, Diniz NM (2008) Conflicts of interest in research involving human beings. J Int Bioethique 19: 143–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Greenberg SA (2009) How citation distorsions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. BMJ 339: b2680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hartmann M, Knoth H, Schulz D, et al. (2003) Industry-sponsored economic studies in oncology vs studies sponsored by nonprofit organizations. Br J Cancer 89: 1405–1408

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Irwin RS (2009) The role of conflict of interest in reporting on scientific information. Chest 136: 253–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jagsi R, Sheets N, Jankovic A, et al. (2009) Frequency, nature, effects, and correlates of conflicts of interest in published clinical cancer research. Cancer 115: 2783–2791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jorgensen AW, Maric KL, Tendal B, et al. (2008) Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with nonprofit or no support: differences in methodological quality and conclusions. BMC Med Res Methodol 8: 60–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kjaegard LL, Als-Nielsen B (2002) Association between competing interests and authors’ conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ 325: 249–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kulkarni AV, Busse JW, Shams I (2007) Characteristics associated with citation rate of the medical literature. PLoS One 2(5): e403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lai R, Chu R, Fraumeni M, et al. (2006) Quality of randomized controlled trials reporting the primary treatment of brain tumors. J Clin Oncol 24: 1136–1144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lesser LI (2009) Reducing potential bias in industry-funded nutrition research. Am J Clin Nutr. DOI 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28093

  35. Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M, et al. (2007) Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Med 4(1): e5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326: 1167–1170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lynch JR, Cunningham MR, Warme WJ, et al. (2007) Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89: 1010–1018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Martin A (2010) Intérêts et conflits d’intérêt en nutrition. Cah Nutr Diet 45: 10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Lancet 375: 1191–1194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Montori VM, Devereaux PJ Adhikari NK, et al. (2005) Randomized trials stopped early for benefit. A systematic review. JAMA 294: 2203–2209

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Morin K, Rakatansky H, Riddick FA, et al. (2005) Managing conflicts of interest in the conduct of clinical trials. JAMA 287: 78–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Newcombe JP, Kerridge IH (2007) Assessment by human research ethics committees of potential conflicts of interest arising from pharmaceutical sponsorship of clinical research. Intern Med J 37: 12–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Nieto A, Mazon A, Pamies R, et al. (2007) Adverse effects of inhaled corticosteroids in funded and nonfunded studies. Arch Intern Med 167: 2047–2053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Peppercorn J, Blood E, Winer E, et al. (2007) Association between pharmaceutical involvement and outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials. Cancer 109: 1239–1246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Riechelmann RP, Wang L, O’Carrol A, et al. (2007) Disclosure of conflicts of interes by authors of clinical trials and editorials in oncology. J Clin Oncol 25: 4642–4647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ross JS, Mulvey GK, Hines EM, et al. (2009) Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med 6(9): e1000144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rothman KJ, Evans S (2005) Extra scrutiny for industry funded trials. JAMA’s demand for an additional hurdle is unfair — and absurd. BMJ 331: 1350–1351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Roundtree AK, Kallen MA, Lopez-Olivo MA, et al. (2009) Poor reporting strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 62: 128–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rowe S, Alexander N, Clydesdale FM, et al. (2009) Funding food science and nutrition research: financial conflicts and scientific integrity. Am J Clin Nutr 89: 1285–1291

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Schroter S, Morris J, Chaudhry S, et al. (2004) Does the type of competing interest statement affect readers’ perceptions of the credibility of research? Randomised trial. BMJ 344: 742–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sismondo S (2008) Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials 29: 109–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Smith R (1998) Beyond conflict of interest. Transparency is the key. BMJ 317: 291–292

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, et al. (2004) Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomized trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. BMJ 328: 22–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Stelfox HT (1998) Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. N Engl J Med 338: 191–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. for the STROBE initiative (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 4: e296, 1623–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Von Elm E, Röllin A, Blümle A, et al. (2008) Publication and non publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee. Swiss Med Wkly 138: 197–203

    Google Scholar 

  57. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM (2002) Press releases. Translating research into news. JAMA 287: 2856–2858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculté de médecine Lyon-Est, 8, avenue Rockefeller, F-69373, Lyon cedex 08, France

    A. Martin

Authors
  1. A. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Martin.

Additional information

Cet article reprend une communication de l’auteur au Congrès SFNEP 2009

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, A. Intérêts et conflits d’intérêts: le point de vue d’un expert. Oncologie 12, 657–665 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10269-010-1956-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10269-010-1956-x

Keywords

Mots clés

Search

Navigation