• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

行业赞助与随机临床试验对照选择。

Industry sponsorship and selection of comparators in randomized clinical trials.

机构信息

General Hospital George Papanikolaou, Thessaloniki, Greece.

出版信息

Eur J Clin Invest. 2010 Feb;40(2):172-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02240.x. Epub 2009 Dec 27.

DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02240.x
PMID:20050879
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Most clinical trials on medical interventions are sponsored by the industry. The choice of comparators shapes the accumulated evidence. We aimed to assess how often major companies sponsor trials that involve only their own products.

METHODS

Studies were identified by searching ClinicalTrials.gov for trials registered in 2006. We focused on randomized trials involving the 15 companies that had sponsored the largest number of registered trials in ClinicalTrials.gov in that period.

RESULTS

Overall, 577 randomized trials were eligible for analysis and 82% had a single industry sponsor [89% (166/187) of the placebo-control trials, 87% (91/105) of trials comparing different doses or ways of administration of the same intervention, and 78% (221/285) of other active control trials]. The compared intervention(s) belonged to a single company in 67% of the trials (89%, 81% and 47% in the three categories respectively). All 15 companies strongly preferred to run trials where they were the only industry sponsor or even the only owner of the assessed interventions. Co-sponsorship typically reflected co-ownership of the same intervention by both companies. Head-to-head comparison of different active interventions developed by different companies occurred in only 18 trials with two or more industry sponsors.

CONCLUSIONS

Each company generates a clinical research agenda that is strongly focused on its own products, while comparisons involving different interventions from different companies are uncommon. This diminishes the ability to understand the relative merits of different interventions for the same condition.

摘要

背景

大多数医学干预措施的临床试验都是由行业赞助的。对照的选择塑造了累积的证据。我们旨在评估主要公司赞助仅涉及自身产品的试验的频率。

方法

通过在 ClinicalTrials.gov 上搜索 2006 年注册的试验来确定研究。我们专注于涉及在该时期 ClinicalTrials.gov 上赞助注册试验数量最多的 15 家公司的随机试验。

结果

共有 577 项随机试验符合分析条件,其中 82%有单一行业赞助商[89%(166/187)的安慰剂对照试验,87%(91/105)的比较同一干预措施不同剂量或给药方式的试验,以及 78%(221/285)的其他活性对照试验]。在 67%的试验中(在这三个类别中分别为 89%、81%和 47%),比较的干预措施属于单一公司。所有 15 家公司都强烈倾向于开展只有他们自己作为行业赞助商或甚至是评估干预措施的唯一所有者的试验。共同赞助通常反映了两家公司对同一干预措施的共同所有权。只有两个或更多行业赞助商的 18 项试验中才进行了不同公司开发的不同活性干预措施的头对头比较。

结论

每家公司都制定了一个临床研究议程,该议程强烈关注其自身产品,而不同公司之间涉及不同干预措施的比较并不常见。这降低了理解同一疾病不同干预措施相对优势的能力。

相似文献

1
Industry sponsorship and selection of comparators in randomized clinical trials.行业赞助与随机临床试验对照选择。
Eur J Clin Invest. 2010 Feb;40(2):172-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02240.x. Epub 2009 Dec 27.
2
Disclosure of competing financial interests and role of sponsors in phase III cancer trials.III期癌症试验中竞争财务利益的披露及申办方的作用。
Eur J Cancer. 2005 Oct;41(15):2237-40. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2004.12.036. Epub 2005 Apr 14.
3
Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor.头对头随机试验大多由行业赞助,而且几乎总是有利于行业赞助商。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jul;68(7):811-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.016. Epub 2015 Feb 7.
4
Large clinical trials in epilepsy: funding by the NIH versus pharmaceutical industry.癫痫领域的大型临床试验:美国国立卫生研究院与制药行业的资金支持情况
Epilepsy Res. 2006 Jan;68(1):52-6. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2005.09.020.
5
Comparators, study duration, outcome measures and sponsorship in therapeutic trials of psoriasis: update of the EDEN Psoriasis Survey 2001-2006.银屑病治疗试验中的对照、研究持续时间、结局指标和赞助:EDEN 银屑病调查 2001-2006 年更新。
Br J Dermatol. 2010 Feb 1;162(2):384-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09515.x. Epub 2009 Sep 24.
6
Industry sponsorship and authorship of clinical trials over 20 years.20多年来行业对临床试验的资助与作者身份情况。
Ann Pharmacother. 2004 Apr;38(4):579-85. doi: 10.1345/aph.1D267. Epub 2004 Feb 24.
7
Association of industry sponsorship to published outcomes in gastrointestinal clinical research.胃肠道临床研究中行业赞助与发表成果的关联。
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006 Dec;4(12):1445-51. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2006.08.019. Epub 2006 Nov 13.
8
Evaluating solutions to sponsorship bias.评估赞助偏差的解决方案。
J Med Ethics. 2008 Aug;34(8):627-30. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.022467.
9
Sponsorship and design characteristics of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.临床试验注册中心注册试验的赞助和设计特点。
Contemp Clin Trials. 2013 Mar;34(2):348-55. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2013.01.004. Epub 2013 Feb 1.
10
Is it ethical to conduct placebo-controlled clinical trials in the development of new agents for osteoporosis? An industry perspective.在骨质疏松症新药研发中开展安慰剂对照临床试验是否符合伦理道德?行业视角。
J Bone Miner Res. 2003 Jun;18(6):1142-5. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.6.1142.

引用本文的文献

1
Disclosed Industry Funding Does Not Increase Positive Outcomes in Studies on Suture Button Fixation for Ankle Syndesmotic Injuries: A Systematic Review.已披露的行业资助并不会增加踝关节下胫腓联合损伤缝线纽扣固定术研究的积极结果:一项系统评价。
Foot Ankle Orthop. 2025 Jun 19;10(2):24730114251341305. doi: 10.1177/24730114251341305. eCollection 2025 Apr.
2
Perioperative immunotherapy strategies for resectable non-small cell lung cancer.可切除非小细胞肺癌的围手术期免疫治疗策略
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 May 19;5(5):CD015819. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015819.
3
Academic vs. industry-sponsored trials: A global survey on differences, similarities, and future improvements.
学术型试验与产业界资助型试验:全球差异、相似性及未来改进情况调查
J Glob Health. 2024 Nov 22;14:04204. doi: 10.7189/jogh.14.04204.
4
Availability of evidence and comparative effectiveness for surgical versus drug interventions: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.手术干预与药物干预的有效性和比较效果的证据:系统评价和荟萃分析概述。
BMJ Open. 2024 Jan 9;14(1):e076675. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076675.
5
Availability of evidence and comparative effectiveness for surgical versus drug interventions: an overview of systematic reviews.手术干预与药物干预的证据可及性及比较效果:系统评价概述
medRxiv. 2023 Feb 1:2023.01.30.23285207. doi: 10.1101/2023.01.30.23285207.
6
Association between control group therapy and magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer drugs.对照组治疗与癌症药物临床获益程度的关联。
Sci Rep. 2022 Dec 9;12(1):21342. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-25983-9.
7
The Impact of Industry Funding on Randomized Controlled Trials of Biologic Therapies.行业资金对生物疗法随机对照试验的影响。
Medicines (Basel). 2022 Feb 28;9(3):18. doi: 10.3390/medicines9030018.
8
An urgent call to raise the bar in oncology.呼吁提高肿瘤学水平。
Br J Cancer. 2021 Nov;125(11):1477-1485. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01495-7. Epub 2021 Aug 16.
9
Real-World Evidence: Bridging Gaps in Evidence to Guide Payer Decisions.真实世界证据:弥合证据差距以指导支付方决策。
Pharmacoecon Open. 2021 Mar;5(1):3-11. doi: 10.1007/s41669-020-00221-y.
10
Head-to-head trials in inflammatory bowel disease: past, present and future.炎症性肠病的头对头试验:过去、现在和未来。
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jun;17(6):365-376. doi: 10.1038/s41575-020-0293-9. Epub 2020 Apr 17.