Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Current Opinion/Update
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

References

  1. Coyle SL (2002) Ethics, Human Rights Committee ACoP-A. Physician-industry relations. Part 1: individual physicians. Ann Intern Med 136(5):396–402

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Korn DMD (2002) Industry, academia, investigator: managing the relationships. Acad Med 77(11):1089–1095 (November)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mathews W (2005) A ghost story: at medical journals, writers paid by industry play big role. Wall Street J A1 (Dec 13)

  4. Kassirer J (2006) Physicians on the take. MedGenMed 8(1):74

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):477–480

    Google Scholar 

  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):598–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Buchkowsky SS, Jewesson PJ (2004) Industry sponsorship and authorship of clinical trials over 20 years. Ann Pharmacother 38(4):579–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1957–1960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Goetzsche P (2005) Research integrity and pharmaceutical industry sponsorship. Med J Aust 182(11):549

    Google Scholar 

  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 13:151–154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rogers W, Mansfield P, Braunack-Mayer A, Jureidini J (2004) The ethics of pharmaceutical industry relationships with students. Med J Aust 180:411–414

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Andersen NV (2006) Gunnar lose vs. Yamanouchi. Ugeskrift for Laeger 168(6):546

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brown AJ (2001) Therapeutic uses of vitamin D analogues. Am J Kidney Dis 38(Suppl 5):S3–S19

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS (2002) Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 287(5):612–617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Moynihan R (2003) The making of a disease: female sexual dysfunction. Br Med J 326:45–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Moynihan R, Cassels A (2005) Selling sickness: how drug companies are turning us all into patients. G. Allen, Sydney, Australia

  17. N.N. World Association of Medical Editors Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals, 2006 at: http://www.wame.org/, accessed 15.5.06

  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: http://www.icmje.org/, accessed 15.5.06

  19. Korn, D. and S. Ehringhaus, Principles for strengthening the integrity of clinical research. 2006, Public Library of Science at: http://www.plosclinicaltrials.org

  20. N.N. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, 2004, at: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm., accessed 15.5.06

  21. 4th Annual Patient Recruitment for Clinical Trials. 2006: New York, at: www.marcusevansbb.com/recruitment, accessed 10.6.06

  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. 2981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1209–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Angell M (2004) The truth about the drug companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Curfman G, Morrissey S, Drazen J (2006) Expression of concern reaffirmed. N Engl J Med 354(11):1193

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Moynihan R (2002) Alosetron: a case study in regulatory capture, or a victory for patients’ rights? Br Med J 325:592–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lievre M (2002) Alosetron for irritable bowel syndrome. Br Med J 325:555–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Horton R (2001) Lotronex and the FDA: a fatal erosion of integrity. Lancet 357:1544–1545

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Further reading

  1. Kassirer JP (2005) On the take. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Krimsky S (2003) Science in the private interest. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD

    Google Scholar 

  3. Angell M (2004) The truth about the drug companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Moynihan R, Cassels A (2005) Selling sickness: how drug companies turning us all into patients. G. Allen, Sydney

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nepean Clinical School, Nepean Hospital, University of Sydney, Penrith NSW, 2750, Australia

    H. P. Dietz

Authors
  1. H. P. Dietz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. P. Dietz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dietz, H.P. Bias in research and conflict of interest: why should we care?. Int Urogynecol J 18, 241–243 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0236-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0236-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation