Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;335:1167 (8 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.39381.655845.BE (published 16 November 2007)
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 weeks 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
Richard A Epstein, James Parker Hall distinguished service professor of law1
1 University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL 60615 USA
repstein@uchicago.edu
Read all Rapid Responses