Suppr超能文献

资助者参与行业试验的实施和报告:描述性研究。

Sponsors' participation in conduct and reporting of industry trials: a descriptive study.

机构信息

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Dept. 7811, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.

出版信息

Trials. 2012 Aug 24;13:146. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-146.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Bias in industry-sponsored trials is common and the interpretation of the results can be particularly distorted in favour of the sponsor's product. We investigated sponsors' involvement in the conduct and reporting of industry-sponsored trials.

METHODS

We included all industry-sponsored trials published in The Lancet in 2008 and 2009 and corresponding trial protocols provided by The Lancet. For each protocol and publication, we extracted information on trial conduct and reporting.

RESULTS

We identified 169 publications of randomised trials and included 69 (41%) that were industry-sponsored, and 12 (7%) industry-funded but seemingly independently conducted as a subsample. Entry of data into the study database was done independently by academic authors without the involvement of the sponsor or a contract research organisation in one of the 69 trials. Two trials had independent data analysis and one independent reporting of results. In 11 of the trials, there was a discrepancy between the information in the protocols and papers concerning who analysed the data. In four of the 12 seemingly independent trials, the protocol described sponsors' involvement in writing the report while the published paper explicitly stated that the sponsor was not involved.

CONCLUSIONS

The sponsors are usually involved in the analysis and reporting of results in industry-sponsored trials, but their exact role is not always clear from the published papers. Journals should require more transparent reporting of the sponsors' role in crucial elements such as data processing, statistical analysis and writing of the manuscript and should consider requiring access to trial protocols, independent data analysis and submission of the raw data.

摘要

背景

行业赞助试验中存在偏见是很常见的,并且试验结果的解释可能会特别偏向赞助商的产品。我们调查了赞助商在行业赞助试验的实施和报告中的参与情况。

方法

我们纳入了 2008 年和 2009 年发表在《柳叶刀》上的所有行业赞助试验和《柳叶刀》提供的相应试验方案。对于每个方案和出版物,我们提取了关于试验实施和报告的信息。

结果

我们确定了 169 篇随机试验的出版物,其中 69 篇(41%)是行业赞助的,12 篇(7%)是行业资助的,但作为一个子样本,似乎是独立进行的。在 69 项试验中的一项中,数据录入研究数据库是由学术作者独立完成的,没有赞助商或合同研究组织的参与。有两项试验进行了独立数据分析,一项试验对结果进行了独立报告。在 11 项试验中,方案和论文中关于谁分析数据的信息存在差异。在 12 项看似独立的试验中,有 4 项方案描述了赞助商参与报告撰写,而发表的论文则明确表示赞助商未参与。

结论

赞助商通常参与行业赞助试验结果的分析和报告,但从已发表的论文中并不总是清楚地了解赞助商的确切角色。期刊应要求更透明地报告赞助商在数据处理、统计分析和手稿撰写等关键要素中的作用,并应考虑要求获得试验方案、独立数据分析和原始数据提交。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验