Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
J Med Ethics. 2010 May;36(5):265-70. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.034496.
Physicians are regularly confronted with research that is funded or presented by industry.
To assess whether physicians discount for conflicts of interest when weighing evidence for prescribing a new drug.
Participants were presented with an abstract from a single clinical trial finding positive results for a fictitious new drug. Physicians were randomly assigned one version of a hypothetical scenario, which varied on conflict of interest: 'presenter conflict', 'researcher conflict' and 'no conflict'.
515 randomly selected Fellows in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network; 253 surveys (49%) were returned. MAIN OBJECT MEASURES: The self-reported likelihood that physicians would prescribe the new drug as a first-line therapy.
Physicians do not significantly discount for conflicts of interest in their self-reported likelihood of prescribing the new drug after reading the single abstract and scenario. However, when asked explicitly to compare conflict and no conflict, 69% report that they would discount for researcher conflict and 57% report that they would discount for presenter conflict. When asked to guess how favourable the results of this study were towards the new drug, compared with the other trials published so far, their perceptions were not significantly influenced by conflict of interest information.
While physicians believe that they should discount the value of information from conflicted sources, they did not do so in the absence of a direct comparison between two studies. This brings into question the effectiveness of merely disclosing the funding sources of published studies.
医生经常会面对由行业资助或提供的研究。
评估医生在权衡新药处方证据时是否会因利益冲突而降低可信度。
参与者被提供了一个关于虚构新药的临床试验摘要，结果为阳性。医生随机分配到一个假设情景的一个版本，该情景在利益冲突方面有所不同：“报告者冲突”、“研究人员冲突”和“无冲突”。
515 名随机选择的美国妇产科学院合作门诊研究网络的研究员；253 份调查（49%）被返回。
医生报告的将新药作为一线治疗药物的可能性。
医生在阅读单一摘要和情景后，并未因利益冲突而显著降低他们报告的新药处方可能性。然而，当被明确要求比较冲突和无冲突时，69%的医生报告他们会因研究人员冲突而降低可信度，57%的医生报告他们会因报告者冲突而降低可信度。当被要求猜测这项研究与迄今为止已发表的其他试验相比，对新药的结果有多么有利时，他们的看法并没有因利益冲突信息而受到显著影响。
尽管医生认为他们应该降低来自有冲突来源的信息的价值，但在没有对两项研究进行直接比较的情况下，他们并没有这样做。这使得仅仅披露已发表研究的资金来源的有效性受到质疑。
