BMJ, doi: 10.1136/bmj.39376.447211.BE, (Published 16 November 2007)

Research

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

¹ Stanford University, Stanford Medical Group, Stanford, CA 94305-5765, USA, ² University of California, San Francisco, ³ Clinical Pharmacy and Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco

Objective To determine whether financial ties to one drug company are associated with favourable results or conclusions in meta-analyses on antihypertensive drugs.

Design Retrospective cohort study.

Setting Meta-analyses published up to December 2004 that were not duplicates and evaluated the effects of antihypertensive drugs compared with any comparator on clinical end points in adults. Financial ties were categorised as one drug company compared with all others.

Main outcome measures The main outcomes were the results and conclusions of meta-analyses, with both outcomes separately categorised as being favourable or not favourable towards the study drug. We also collected data on characteristics of meta-analyses that the literature suggested might be associated with favourable results or conclusions.

Results 124 meta-analyses were included in the study, 49 (40%) of which had financial ties to one drug company. On univariate logistic regression analyses, meta-analyses of better methodological quality were more likely to have favourable results (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.27). Although financial ties to one drug company were not associated with favourable results, such ties constituted the only characteristic significantly associated with favourable conclusions (4.09, 1.30 to 12.83). When controlling for other characteristics of meta-analyses in multiple logistic regression analyses, meta-analyses that had financial ties to one drug company remained more likely to report favourable conclusions (5.11, 1.54 to 16.92).

Conclusion Meta-analyses on antihypertensive drugs and with financial ties to one drug company are not associated with favourable results but are associated with favourable conclusions.

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

Relevant Articles

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Alessandro Liberati, Douglas G Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Cynthia Mulrow, Peter C Gøtzsche, John P A Ioannidis, Mike Clarke, P J Devereaux, Jos Kleijnen, and David Moher
BMJ 2009 339: b2700. [Abstract] [Full Text]

Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, and impact in studies of influenza vaccines: systematic review

T Jefferson, C Di Pietrantonj, M G Debalini, A Rivetti, and V Demicheli
BMJ 2009 338: b354. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Delve deeper to find the links

John H Noble, Jr
BMJ 2008 336: 59. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Consider palliative coronary intervention

Michael R Chester
BMJ 2008 336: 59. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Influence of pharmaceutical funding on the conclusions of meta-analyses

Richard A Epstein
BMJ 2007 335: 1167. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Influence of pharmaceutical funding on the conclusions of meta-analyses

Richard A Epstein
BMJ 2007 335: 1167. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review

Anders W Jørgensen, Jørgen Hilden, and Peter C Gøtzsche
BMJ 2006 333: 782. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Commercial influence and the content of medical journals

Joel Lexchin and Donald W Light
BMJ 2006 332: 1444-1447. [Full Text] [PDF]

Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review

Joel Lexchin, Lisa A Bero, Benjamin Djulbegovic, and Otavio Clark
BMJ 2003 326: 1167-1170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ

Lise L Kjaergard and Bodil Als-Nielsen
BMJ 2002 325: 249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines

Robin Harbour and Juliet Miller
BMJ 2001 323: 334-336. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation

Alejandro R Jadad, Michael Moher, George P Browman, Lynda Booker, Christopher Sigouin, Mario Fuentes, and Robert Stevens
BMJ 2000 320: 537-540. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P.A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. ANN INTERN MED 151: W-65-W-94 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Greenland, S. (2009). Accounting for uncertainty about investigator bias: disclosure is informative: How could disclosure of interests work better in medicine, epidemiology and public health?. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 63: 593-598 [Full text]  
• Liberati, A., Altman, D. G, Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C, Ioannidis, J. P A, Clarke, M., Devereaux, P J, Kleijnen, J., Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339: b2700-b2700 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Scott, P. J., Briggs, J. S. (2009). A Pragmatist Argument for Mixed Methodology in Medical Informatics. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 3: 223-241 [Abstract]  
• Luty, J, Arokiadass, S M R, Easow, J M, Anapreddy, J R (2009). Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals. J. Med. Ethics 35: 200-202 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Jefferson, T, Di Pietrantonj, C, Debalini, M G, Rivetti, A, Demicheli, V (2009). Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, and impact in studies of influenza vaccines: systematic review. BMJ 338: b354-b354 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Nasser, M., van Binsbergen, J., Javaheri, H., Yassiny, K. (2008). Diet and nutrition advice from the Cochrane Library: is it useful for the consumers and family physicians?. Fam Pract 25: i60-i66 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Conen, D., Torres, J., Ridker, P. M (2008). Differential Citation Rates of Major Cardiovascular Clinical Trials According to Source of Funding: A Survey From 2000 to 2005. Circulation 118: 1321-1327 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Chalkidou, K., Walley, T., Culyer, A., Littlejohns, P., Hoy, A. (2008). Evidence-informed evidence-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 13: 167-173 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Whitlock, E. P., Lin, J. S., Chou, R., Shekelle, P., Robinson, K. A. (2008). Using Existing Systematic Reviews in Complex Systematic Reviews. ANN INTERN MED 148: 776-782 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Bush, A. (2008). Regulating spoons. Eur Respir J 31: 699-700 [Full text]  
• Noble, J. H Jr (2008). Delve deeper to find the links. BMJ 336: 59-59 [Full text]  
• Chester, M. R (2008). Consider palliative coronary intervention. BMJ 336: 59-59 [Full text]  
• Epstein, R. A (2007). Influence of pharmaceutical funding on the conclusions of meta-analyses. BMJ 335: 1167-1167 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Consider the influence of equipment manufacturers on the ‘evidence’ for palliative coronary intervention

Michael R Chester
bmj.com, 17 Nov 2007 [Full text]

Surprising Non-Finding, Predictable Criticism

John H Noble Jr
bmj.com, 17 Dec 2007 [Full text]

How valid were the assessments of concordance between results and conclusions?

Adam Jacobs
bmj.com, 15 Feb 2008 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more>>