Shah Rahul V, Albert Todd J, Bruegel-Sanchez Victoria, Vaccaro Alexander R, Hilibrand Alan S, Grauer Jonathan N
Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 May 1;30(9):1099-104; discussion 1105. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000161004.15308.b4.
Retrospective review of articles published in the journal Spine.
To evaluate potential correlations between research sponsorship and study outcome.
Industry sponsorship has traditionally been associated with more positive results than non-funded or peer-reviewed funded projects in other areas of medicine. The association of such sponsorship and study outcome has not been addressed previously in spine research.
Articles from the journal Spine from January 2002 to July 2003 were reviewed. These were examined for the subject evaluated, type of study design, funding source, and conclusion reached.
Of 1143 articles, 527 met inclusion criteria of having abstract, materials/methods, and conclusion sections. Industry support was reported for 84 (15.9%), foundation support for 67 (12.7%), government support for 54 (10.2%), institution support for 17 (3.2%), and no funding was reported for 304 (57.9%). The odds ratio of industry funded reporting positive results was 3.3 times that of studies with any other funding sources (P < 0.001).
Industry funded studies demonstrated a statistically greater likelihood to report positive results than studies with other funding sources. Potential explanations for this are biased study design, biased experimental technique, biased result interpretation, or publication bias. Although the expense of research and limited funding sources have forced an increased reliance on industry support for funding basic science and clinical spine research, this does introduce the potential for bias and must be recognized by the reader.
对发表于《脊柱》杂志的文章进行回顾性研究。
评估研究资助与研究结果之间的潜在相关性。
在医学的其他领域，传统上行业资助的研究比无资助或同行评审资助的项目会产生更积极的结果。脊柱研究中尚未探讨此类资助与研究结果之间的关联。
回顾了2002年1月至2003年7月《脊柱》杂志上的文章。对这些文章的评估主题、研究设计类型、资金来源和得出的结论进行了审查。
在1143篇文章中，527篇符合纳入标准，即包含摘要、材料/方法和结论部分。报告有行业资助的文章84篇（15.9%），基金会资助的文章67篇（12.7%），政府资助的文章54篇（10.2%），机构资助的文章17篇（3.2%），未报告有资金资助的文章304篇（57.9%）。行业资助的研究报告阳性结果的优势比是其他任何资金来源研究的3.3倍（P < 0.001）。
与其他资金来源的研究相比，行业资助的研究在统计学上更有可能报告阳性结果。对此的潜在解释可能是有偏差的研究设计、有偏差的实验技术、有偏差的结果解释或发表偏倚。尽管研究费用高昂且资金来源有限，迫使人们越来越依赖行业资助来开展基础科学和脊柱临床研究，但这确实存在产生偏倚的可能性，读者必须认识到这一点。
