Cargando…

Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners’ confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Systematic reporting of funding sources is recommended in the CONSORT Statement for abstracts. However, no specific recommendation is related to the reporting of conflicts of interest (CoI). The objective was to compare physicians’ confidence in the conclusions of abstracts of randomized...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: du Vaure, Céline Buffel, Boutron, Isabelle, Perrodeau, Elodie, Ravaud, Philippe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4022327/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24779384
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-69
_version_ 1782316382041407488
author du Vaure, Céline Buffel
Boutron, Isabelle
Perrodeau, Elodie
Ravaud, Philippe
author_facet du Vaure, Céline Buffel
Boutron, Isabelle
Perrodeau, Elodie
Ravaud, Philippe
author_sort du Vaure, Céline Buffel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Systematic reporting of funding sources is recommended in the CONSORT Statement for abstracts. However, no specific recommendation is related to the reporting of conflicts of interest (CoI). The objective was to compare physicians’ confidence in the conclusions of abstracts of randomized controlled trials of pharmaceutical treatment indexed in PubMed. METHODS: We planned a three-arm parallel-group randomized trial. French general practitioners (GPs) were invited to participate and were blinded to the study’s aim. We used a representative sample of 75 abstracts of pharmaceutical industry-funded randomized controlled trials published in 2010 and indexed in PubMed. Each abstract was standardized and reported in three formats: 1) no mention of the funding source or CoI; 2) reporting the funding source only; and 3) reporting the funding source and CoI. GPs were randomized according to a computerized randomization on a secure Internet system at a 1:1:1 ratio to assess one abstract among the three formats. The primary outcome was GPs’ confidence in the abstract conclusions (0, not at all, to 10, completely confident). The study was planned to detect a large difference with an effect size of 0.5. RESULTS: Between October 2012 and June 2013, among 605 GPs contacted, 354 were randomized, 118 for each type of abstract. The mean difference (95% confidence interval) in GPs’ confidence in abstract findings was 0.2 (-0.6; 1.0) (P = 0.84) for abstracts reporting the funding source only versus no funding source or CoI; -0.4 (-1.3; 0.4) (P = 0.39) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus no funding source and CoI; and -0.6 (-1.5; 0.2) (P = 0.15) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus the funding source only. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a large impact of trial report abstracts mentioning funding sources or CoI on GPs’ confidence in the conclusions of the abstracts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01679873
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4022327
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40223272014-05-16 Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners’ confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial du Vaure, Céline Buffel Boutron, Isabelle Perrodeau, Elodie Ravaud, Philippe BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Systematic reporting of funding sources is recommended in the CONSORT Statement for abstracts. However, no specific recommendation is related to the reporting of conflicts of interest (CoI). The objective was to compare physicians’ confidence in the conclusions of abstracts of randomized controlled trials of pharmaceutical treatment indexed in PubMed. METHODS: We planned a three-arm parallel-group randomized trial. French general practitioners (GPs) were invited to participate and were blinded to the study’s aim. We used a representative sample of 75 abstracts of pharmaceutical industry-funded randomized controlled trials published in 2010 and indexed in PubMed. Each abstract was standardized and reported in three formats: 1) no mention of the funding source or CoI; 2) reporting the funding source only; and 3) reporting the funding source and CoI. GPs were randomized according to a computerized randomization on a secure Internet system at a 1:1:1 ratio to assess one abstract among the three formats. The primary outcome was GPs’ confidence in the abstract conclusions (0, not at all, to 10, completely confident). The study was planned to detect a large difference with an effect size of 0.5. RESULTS: Between October 2012 and June 2013, among 605 GPs contacted, 354 were randomized, 118 for each type of abstract. The mean difference (95% confidence interval) in GPs’ confidence in abstract findings was 0.2 (-0.6; 1.0) (P = 0.84) for abstracts reporting the funding source only versus no funding source or CoI; -0.4 (-1.3; 0.4) (P = 0.39) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus no funding source and CoI; and -0.6 (-1.5; 0.2) (P = 0.15) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus the funding source only. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a large impact of trial report abstracts mentioning funding sources or CoI on GPs’ confidence in the conclusions of the abstracts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01679873 BioMed Central 2014-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC4022327/ /pubmed/24779384 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-69 Text en Copyright © 2014 du Vaure et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
du Vaure, Céline Buffel
Boutron, Isabelle
Perrodeau, Elodie
Ravaud, Philippe
Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners’ confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial
title Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners’ confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial
title_full Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners’ confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners’ confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners’ confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial
title_short Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners’ confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial
title_sort reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners’ confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4022327/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24779384
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-69
work_keys_str_mv AT duvaurecelinebuffel reportingfundingsourceorconflictofinterestinabstractsofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsnoevidenceofalargeimpactongeneralpractitionersconfidenceinconclusionsathreearmrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT boutronisabelle reportingfundingsourceorconflictofinterestinabstractsofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsnoevidenceofalargeimpactongeneralpractitionersconfidenceinconclusionsathreearmrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT perrodeauelodie reportingfundingsourceorconflictofinterestinabstractsofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsnoevidenceofalargeimpactongeneralpractitionersconfidenceinconclusionsathreearmrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ravaudphilippe reportingfundingsourceorconflictofinterestinabstractsofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsnoevidenceofalargeimpactongeneralpractitionersconfidenceinconclusionsathreearmrandomizedcontrolledtrial