Cargando…

The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013–2015 – a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Trials financed by for-profit organizations have been associated with favorable outcomes of new treatments, although the effect size of funding source impact on outcome is unknown. The aim of this study was to estimate the effect size for a favorable outcome in randomized controlled tria...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Falk Delgado, Alberto, Falk Delgado, Anna
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5351064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28292317
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1872-0
_version_ 1782514715097825280
author Falk Delgado, Alberto
Falk Delgado, Anna
author_facet Falk Delgado, Alberto
Falk Delgado, Anna
author_sort Falk Delgado, Alberto
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Trials financed by for-profit organizations have been associated with favorable outcomes of new treatments, although the effect size of funding source impact on outcome is unknown. The aim of this study was to estimate the effect size for a favorable outcome in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), stratified by funding source, that have been published in general medical journals. METHODS: Parallel-group RCTs published in The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA between 2013 and 2015 were identified. RCTs with binary primary endpoints were included. The primary outcome was the OR of patients’ having a favorable outcome in the intervention group compared with the control group. The OR of a favorable outcome in each trial was calculated by the number of positive events that occurred in the intervention and control groups. A meta-analytic technique with random effects model was used to calculate summary OR. Data were stratified by funding source as for-profit, mixed, and nonprofit. Prespecified sensitivity, subgroup, and metaregression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Five hundred nine trials were included. The OR for a favorable outcome in for-profit-funded RCTs was 1.92 (95% CI 1.72–2.14), which was higher than mixed source-funded RCTs (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.25–1.43) and nonprofit-funded RCTs (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.26–1.39). The OR for a favorable outcome was higher for both clinical and surrogate endpoints in for-profit-funded trials than in RCTs with other funding sources. Excluding drug trials lowered the OR for a favorable outcome in for-profit-funded RCTs. The OR for a favorable surrogate outcome in drug trials was higher in for-profit-funded trials than in nonprofit-funded trials. CONCLUSIONS: For-profit-funded RCTs have a higher OR for a favorable outcome than nonprofit- and mixed source-funded RCTs. This difference is associated mainly with the use of surrogate endpoints in for-profit-financed drug trials. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1872-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5351064
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53510642017-03-17 The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013–2015 – a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis Falk Delgado, Alberto Falk Delgado, Anna Trials Research BACKGROUND: Trials financed by for-profit organizations have been associated with favorable outcomes of new treatments, although the effect size of funding source impact on outcome is unknown. The aim of this study was to estimate the effect size for a favorable outcome in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), stratified by funding source, that have been published in general medical journals. METHODS: Parallel-group RCTs published in The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA between 2013 and 2015 were identified. RCTs with binary primary endpoints were included. The primary outcome was the OR of patients’ having a favorable outcome in the intervention group compared with the control group. The OR of a favorable outcome in each trial was calculated by the number of positive events that occurred in the intervention and control groups. A meta-analytic technique with random effects model was used to calculate summary OR. Data were stratified by funding source as for-profit, mixed, and nonprofit. Prespecified sensitivity, subgroup, and metaregression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Five hundred nine trials were included. The OR for a favorable outcome in for-profit-funded RCTs was 1.92 (95% CI 1.72–2.14), which was higher than mixed source-funded RCTs (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.25–1.43) and nonprofit-funded RCTs (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.26–1.39). The OR for a favorable outcome was higher for both clinical and surrogate endpoints in for-profit-funded trials than in RCTs with other funding sources. Excluding drug trials lowered the OR for a favorable outcome in for-profit-funded RCTs. The OR for a favorable surrogate outcome in drug trials was higher in for-profit-funded trials than in nonprofit-funded trials. CONCLUSIONS: For-profit-funded RCTs have a higher OR for a favorable outcome than nonprofit- and mixed source-funded RCTs. This difference is associated mainly with the use of surrogate endpoints in for-profit-financed drug trials. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1872-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5351064/ /pubmed/28292317 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1872-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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
Falk Delgado, Alberto
Falk Delgado, Anna
The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013–2015 – a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis
title The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013–2015 – a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis
title_full The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013–2015 – a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis
title_fullStr The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013–2015 – a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013–2015 – a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis
title_short The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013–2015 – a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis
title_sort association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013–2015 – a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5351064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28292317
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1872-0
work_keys_str_mv AT falkdelgadoalberto theassociationoffundingsourceoneffectsizeinrandomizedcontrolledtrials20132015acrosssectionalsurveyandmetaanalysis
AT falkdelgadoanna theassociationoffundingsourceoneffectsizeinrandomizedcontrolledtrials20132015acrosssectionalsurveyandmetaanalysis
AT falkdelgadoalberto associationoffundingsourceoneffectsizeinrandomizedcontrolledtrials20132015acrosssectionalsurveyandmetaanalysis
AT falkdelgadoanna associationoffundingsourceoneffectsizeinrandomizedcontrolledtrials20132015acrosssectionalsurveyandmetaanalysis