Industry vs Non-Profit Supported Meta-Analyses: A Comparison
Author Information
Author(s): Jørgensen Anders W, Maric Katja L, Tendal Britta, Faurschou Annesofie, Gøtzsche Peter C
Primary Institution: The Nordic Cochrane Centre
Hypothesis
Meta-analyses supported by the pharmaceutical industry are of poorer methodological quality and have conclusions favouring the experimental drug, compared to meta-analyses with non-profit or no support.
Conclusion
Industry-supported meta-analyses are less transparent than those with non-profit support or no support.
Supporting Evidence
- Meta-analyses with non-profit or no support had a median quality score of 6, while industry-supported meta-analyses had a score of 2.5.
- More non-profit or no support meta-analyses avoided bias in study selection compared to industry-supported ones.
- Only 40% of industry-supported meta-analyses recommended the experimental drug without reservations.
Takeaway
This study looked at different types of research comparing drugs and found that studies funded by drug companies are often less reliable than those funded by non-profits.
Methodology
The study involved searching PubMed for meta-analyses published in 2004, assessing their quality and conclusions based on their funding sources.
Potential Biases
Potential misclassification of industry support and lack of transparency in reporting could lead to biased assessments.
Limitations
The authors were not blinded to the funding sources, which could introduce bias.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.01
Statistical Significance
p<0.01
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website