Industry sponsored studies twice as likely to have positive conclusions about costs

doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7422.1006-b

BMJ 2003;327:1006 (1 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7422.1006-b

News

Industry sponsored studies twice as likely to have positive conclusions about costs

Roger Dobson

Abergavenny

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Researchers have warned of the risk of sponsorship bias in healtheconomic studies in the field of cancer.

Industry sponsored studies were twice as likely to be cost minimisationanalyses, which compare equally effective treatments on thebasis of costs. The industry studies were 2.5 times less likelyto be cost effectiveness analyses, say the authors of a studyin the British Journal of Cancer ( 2003:89: 1405-8)[CrossRef][Medline].

"Industry sponsored studies were 1.9 times more likely to havepositive qualitative conclusions about costs than studies sponsoredby non-profit organisations. This relationship can be attributedto a sponsorship bias," says the report.

"In order to counter the risk that the type of sponsorship mightinfluence health economic analyses, it is necessary to improvethe quality of such studies," say the authors. "Furthermore,full disclosure of all financial interests involved in healtheconomic studies should be provided routinely."

In the . . . [Full text of this article]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike Add to Complore Complore Add to Connotea Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us Add to Digg Digg Add to Reddit Reddit Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon Add to Technorati Technorati What's this?