BMJ  2007;335:1167 (8 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.39381.655845.BE (published 16 November 2007)

Editorials

Influence of pharmaceutical funding on the conclusions of meta-analyses

Original data are sound, but conclusions should be interpreted with caution

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

Differences in interpretation of results between meta-analyses funded by drug companies and those that are not rightly raise concerns about the reliability of studies funded by the industry.¹²³⁴⁵

In this week’s BMJ, Yank and colleagues offer further proof of the potential influence that the drug industry has on the outcomes of the studies they fund.⁶ The study assesses the correlation between the "results" of meta-analyses about hypertensive drugs and the "conclusions" their authors draw from them. Even if we allow for the inevitable subjectivity of Yank and colleagues’ review of the included meta-analyses and for the other potential sources of bias they recognise—unblinded review and somewhat arbitrary measures of financial ties—the key findings are likely to be robust and will draw the ire of the many critics of the drug industry.

Yank and colleagues show that studies funded by a single drug company have a 55% rate of favourable . . . [Full text of this article]

¹ University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL 60615 USA

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

Related Article

Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study

Veronica Yank, Drummond Rennie, and Lisa A Bero
BMJ 2007 335: 1202-1205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Dictatorship of statistics, meta-analyses mess and sources of confusing conclusions

AUGUSTO PIMAZONI
bmj.com, 21 Nov 2007 [Full text]

Don't shoot the messenger

ARTHUR A. LEVIN MPH
bmj.com, 8 Dec 2007 [Full text]

Beyond any reasonable doubt

AUGUSTO PIMAZONI, MD
bmj.com, 11 Dec 2007 [Full text]