BMJ  2008;336:59 (12 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.39450.701262.3A

Letters

Financial ties that might bind

Delve deeper to find the links

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

The finding by Yank et al of no connection between results in meta-analyses and financial ties is surprising,¹ given the greater deficiencies for reporting of harm outcomes among trials that were solely funded by industry (median 56% per trial) than among trials that were not (27%).² Evidently the Oxman-Guyatt measure of scientific quality of research reviews used by Yank et al cannot capture discrepancies in original research protocols and their published form and the selective reporting of outcomes, both of which are prevalent in randomised trials.²

Firstly, bias in reporting outcomes acts in addition to and in the same direction as publication bias of entire studies to produce inflated estimates of the effects of treatment.²

Secondly, the antidote is to require registration of all trials and protocols in the public domain before completing the study and to assure that they be made available along with any manuscript undergoing peer review . . . [Full text of this article]

¹ 508 Rio Grande Loop, Georgetown, TX 78633, USA

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

Related Articles

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]

Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study

Julie Pildal, An-Wen Chan, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Elisabeth Forfang, Douglas G Altman, and Peter C Gøtzsche
BMJ 2005 330: 1049. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]