The effects of industry funding and positive outcomes in the interpretation of clinical trial results: a randomized trial among Dutch psychiatrists

BMC Medical Ethics 20 (1):1-8 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Most studies are inclined to report positive rather than negative or inconclusive results. It is currently unknown how clinicians appraise the results of a randomized clinical trial. For example, how does the study funding source influence the appraisal of an RCT, and do positive findings influence perceived credibility and clinical relevance? This study investigates whether psychiatrists’ appraisal of a scientific abstract is influenced by industry funding disclosures and a positive outcome. Dutch psychiatrists were randomized to evaluate a scientific abstract describing a fictitious RCT for a novel antipsychotic drug. Four different abstracts were created reporting either absence or presence of industry funding disclosure as well as a positive or a negative outcome. Primary outcomes were the perceived credibility and clinical relevance of the study results. Secondary outcomes were the assessment of methodological quality and interest in reading the full article. Three hundred ninety-five psychiatrists completed the survey. Industry funding disclosure was found not to influence perceived credibility nor interpretation of its clinical relevance. A negative outcome was perceived as more credible than a positive outcome 0.43 to 1.18, p?), but did not affect clinical relevance scores. In this study, industry funding disclosure was not associated with the perceived credibility nor judgement of clinical relevance of a fictional RCT by psychiatrists. Positive study outcomes were found to be less credible compared to negative outcomes, but industry funding had no significant effects. Psychiatrists may underestimate the influence of funding sources on research results. The fact that physicians indicated negative outcomes to be more credible may point to more awareness of existing publication bias in the scientific literature.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Evaluating solutions to sponsorship bias.M. Doucet & S. Sismondo - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (8):627-630.
Toward a Jurisprudence of Drug Regulation.Matthew Herder - 2014 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 42 (2):244-262.
Positive messages may reduce patient pain: A meta-analysis.Jeremy Howick & Alexander Mebius - 2017 - European Journal of Integrative Medicine 11:31-38.
Better Regulation of Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials Is Long Overdue.Matthew Wynia & David Boren - 2009 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37 (3):410-419.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-09-20

Downloads
12 (#929,405)

6 months
4 (#319,344)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Lex M. Bouter
VU University Amsterdam

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations