Tuech Jean-Jacques, Moutel Grégoire, Pessaux Patrick, Thoma Véronique, Schraub Simon, Herve Christian
Laboratoire d'Ethique Médicale et Médecine Légale, Faculté de Médecine de Paris 5, 45 rue des Saints-Pères, 75006 Paris, France.
Eur J Cancer. 2005 Oct;41(15):2237-40. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2004.12.036. Epub 2005 Apr 14.
Financial relationships between industry, researchers and academic institutions are becoming increasingly complex, raising concern about sponsors' involvement in the conduct of biomedical research. A review of published randomised trials (RCTs) in cancer research was performed to assess adherence to the 1997 disclosure requirements and to document the nature of the disclosed interests. Source(s) of study support, author-sponsor relationships and the role of the study sponsor were assessed for all RCTs published between 1999 and 2003 in 12 international journals. A total of 655 cancer RCTs were identified. Of these, 516 (78.8%) disclosed the source of sponsorship. The nature of the relationship between the authors and the study sponsor was included in 219 of the 227 industry-sponsored studies. The most commonly cited relationships were (131 studies had multiple relations): grants (93.6%); employment (39.2%); consultant/honorarium (12.7%) and stock ownership and participation in a speaker's bureau (12, 5.5% each). Only 41 (18%) of the 227 industry-sponsored RCTs reported the role of the sponsor. Of these, 20 explicitly stated that the sponsor had no role in the study. Twenty-one papers described the sponsor's role, the degree of sponsor involvement was variable and usually described vaguely. Among these papers, four stated that researchers had full access to all data, one that the researchers had no limits on publication and one that 'the decision to submit the paper for publication was determined by the study sponsor'. In conclusion, no researcher should be expected to produce 'findings' without full access to the data, freedom from interference in analysis and interpretation and liberty to publish all results, however disappointing to the stakeholder they may be. In the meantime, researchers do well to arm themselves with the rules for research partnerships and editors to take on the role of watchdog.
制药企业、研究人员和学术机构之间的财务关系日益复杂,这引发了人们对赞助商参与生物医学研究行为的担忧。对已发表的癌症研究随机试验(RCT)进行了一项综述,以评估对1997年披露要求的遵守情况,并记录所披露利益的性质。对1999年至2003年期间在12种国际期刊上发表的所有随机试验的研究支持来源、作者与赞助商的关系以及研究赞助商的作用进行了评估。共识别出655项癌症随机试验。其中,516项(78.8%)披露了赞助来源。在227项由企业赞助的研究中,有219项包含了作者与研究赞助商之间关系的性质。最常被提及的关系有(131项研究存在多种关系):资助(93.6%);雇佣(39.2%);顾问/酬金(12.7%)以及股权和参与演讲人办公室(各12项,5.5%)。在227项由企业赞助的随机试验中,只有41项(18%)报告了赞助商的作用。其中,20项明确表示赞助商在研究中没有作用。21篇论文描述了赞助商的作用,赞助商的参与程度各不相同,且通常描述得很模糊。在这些论文中,有4篇表示研究人员可以完全获取所有数据,1篇表示研究人员在发表方面没有限制,还有1篇表示“提交论文发表的决定由研究赞助商决定”。总之,不应期望任何研究人员在无法完全获取数据、不受分析和解释干扰以及能够自由发表所有结果(无论这些结果对利益相关者可能有多令人失望)的情况下得出“研究结果”。与此同时,研究人员最好熟悉研究合作的规则,编辑应发挥监督作用。