Positieve resultaten door gesponsord onderzoek

Over partners en familieleden met schildklierziektes. Over werk en sport. Over gewicht en afvallen.
ineke
Berichten: 484
Lid geworden op: 08 nov 2014, 17:53

Positieve resultaten door gesponsord onderzoek

Bericht door ineke »

Positieve resultaten door gesponsord onderzoek

Auteur: Bèr Pleumeekers



Wetenschappelijk onderzoek dat gesponsord wordt door de farmaceutische industrie laat vaker een positief resultaat zien dan onderzoek dat niet door de industrie gesponsord wordt.
Daarnaast worden de bevindingen in de conclusieparagraaf van artikelen vaker gunstiger omschreven dan bij onderzoek dat op een andere wijze is gefinancierd.


In een literatuuronderzoek werden onderzoekspublicaties die door de farmaceutische industrie werden gesponsord vergeleken met onderzoeken die op andere wijze werden gefinancierd. Dit leverde in totaal 75 bruikbare artikelen op.
In het door de industrie gesponsorde onderzoek is in 27% van de gevallen vaker sprake van gunstige resultaten van het onderzochte medicament dan voor onderzoeken die op andere wijze werden gefinancierd (statistisch significant).
De meldingen van bijwerkingen waren voor beide typen onderzoek verschillend, maar deze verschillen waren niet statistisch significant. Verder viel op dat in 17% van de door de industrie gesponsorde onderzoeken in de conclusieparagraaf de resultaten te rooskleurig werden voorgesteld. Ook dit verschil was statistisch significant.


De gevonden verschillen tussen wetenschappelijke publicaties, al dan niet gesponsord door de farmaceutische industrie, konden niet verklaard worden door de gebruikelijke oorzaken van bias die onderzoeken met zich mee kunnen brengen. Wat dan wel de reden is, blijft onduidelijk.
Enerzijds kan winstbejag een motief zijn om wetenschappers onder druk te zetten de resultaten mooier voor te stellen dan ze zijn, anderzijds is de farmaceutische industrie mogelijk geneigd alleen die onderzoeken te financieren waar op voorhand de beste resultaten van te verwachten zijn en laten ze de in potentie minder succesvolle onderzoeken over aan overheden en ander financiers.
Wetenschap en industrie zullen nog lang een problematische relatie houden. Zolang dat nog het geval is, blijft oplettendheid geboden.

Bron: Huisarts en Wetenschap - Mei ?? 2017




Industry Sponsorship and Research Outcome
A Lundh et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2, MR000033. 2017 Feb 16.

Background:
Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical-industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship.
A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome.

Objectives:
To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

Search methods:
In this update we searched MEDLINE (2010 to February 2015), Embase (2010 to February 2015), the Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

Selection criteria:
Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.

Data collection and analysis:
Two assessors screened abstracts and identified and included relevant papers. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)).

Main results:
Twenty-seven new papers were included in this update and in total the review contains 75 included papers. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.37) (25 papers) (moderate quality evidence), similar harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) (four papers) (very low quality evidence) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51) (29 papers) (low quality evidence) compared with non-industry sponsored studies.

Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data and the results were heterogeneous. We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.98) (four papers).

Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.50) (13 papers), compared with non-industry sponsored studies.
In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98) (six papers).

Authors' conclusions:
Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources.
Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

PubMed: 28207928
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/28207928/


.
Plaats reactie