Roach James W, Skaggs David L, Sponseller Paul D, Macleod Lynne M
Intermountain Shrine Hospital, University of Utah, Fairfax at Virginia, Salt Lake City, Utah 84109, USA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Sep 15;33(20):2208-12. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817bd8f8.
All abstracts submitted to the 2006 SRS annual meeting were reviewed.
To determine the rate of funding in abstracts submitted for presentation at the 2006 Annual Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) meeting and whether funding produced bias toward a positive outcome.
Financial conflicts of interest have been attributed to bias in research.
Three members the SRS Program Committee reviewed 610 abstracts submitted for presentation at the 2006 annual meeting. The committee's average grade was correlated with type of funding (industry, professional society, university); abstract conclusions (favorable, unfavorable, or only descriptive); and subject category [adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), motion preservation, etc.].
Of the 610 submitted articles, 72% (n = 440) were unfunded. Of the 170 funded articles, 140 were supported by industry, 7 by government agency, 8 by professional societies, 4 by universities, and 11 by private foundations. There was no statistically significant difference between the reviewers' grades of funded versus unfunded articles (P = 0.39). Comparing AIS articles to all the other categories, the number of funded articles were significantly greater only in motion preservation (P < 0.001) and genetics (P = 0.039). When a consultant/employee relationship was present, there was a significant difference in the proportion of funded articles and favorable findings (P = 0.048).
The higher percentage of funded articles in motion preservation and genetics compared to AIS articles could reflect a bias in those 2 areas. However, although there were more funded articles in those 2 areas there were not more funded, favorable articles (motion preservation P = 0.059, and genetics P = 0.3). Thus, certain categories attracted more funding than others but there was not a bias toward favorable findings within the funded articles unless the funding was due to a consultant/employee relationship.
对提交至2006年脊柱侧凸研究学会（SRS）年会的所有摘要进行了审查。
确定提交至2006年脊柱侧凸研究学会（SRS）年会进行展示的摘要的资助率，以及资助是否会导致偏向积极结果的偏差。
利益冲突已被归因于研究中的偏差。
SRS项目委员会的三名成员审查了提交至2006年年会进行展示的610篇摘要。委员会的平均评分与资助类型（行业、专业协会、大学）、摘要结论（有利、不利或仅为描述性）以及主题类别[青少年特发性脊柱侧凸（AIS）、运动保留等]相关。
在提交的610篇文章中，72%（n = 440）未获得资助。在170篇获得资助的文章中，140篇由行业资助，7篇由政府机构资助，8篇由专业协会资助，4篇由大学资助，11篇由私人基金会资助。资助文章与未资助文章的评审员评分之间无统计学显著差异（P = 0.39）。将AIS文章与所有其他类别进行比较，仅在运动保留（P < 0.001）和遗传学（P = 0.039）方面，获得资助的文章数量显著更多。当存在顾问/员工关系时，获得资助的文章比例与有利结果之间存在显著差异（P = 0.048）。
与AIS文章相比，运动保留和遗传学领域获得资助的文章比例较高，这可能反映了这两个领域存在偏差。然而，尽管这两个领域获得资助的文章较多，但获得资助且结果有利的文章并不更多（运动保留P = 0.059，遗传学P = 0.3）。因此，某些类别比其他类别吸引了更多资助，但在获得资助的文章中不存在偏向有利结果的偏差，除非资助是由于顾问/员工关系。
