Top

BMC Medicine

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research article

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

Authors: Céline Buffel du Vaure, Isabelle Boutron, Elodie Perrodeau, Philippe Ravaud

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2014

Abstract

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

Available only for authorised users

Bekelman J, Li Y, Gross C: Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003, 289: 454-465. 10.1001/jama.289.4.454.CrossRefPubMed

Sismondo S: How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: causal structures and responses. Soc Sci Med. 2008, 66: 1909-1914. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.010.CrossRefPubMed

Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L: Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med. 2008, 5: e217-10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217. discussion e217CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L: Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012, 12: MR000033.PubMed

Lexchin J, Bero L, Djulbegovic B, Clark O: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003, 326: 1167-1170. 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hill KP, Ross JS, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM: The ADVANTAGE seeding trial: a review of internal documents. Ann Intern Med. 2008, 149: 251-258. 10.7326/0003-4819-149-4-200808190-00006.CrossRefPubMed

Forrow L, Taylor W, Arnold R: Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992, 92: 121-124. 10.1016/0002-9343(92)90100-P.CrossRefPubMed

Bucher H, Weinbacher M, Gyr K: Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ. 1994, 309: 761-764. 10.1136/bmj.309.6957.761.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kjaergard L, Als-Nielsen B: Association between competing interests and authors’ conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ. 2002, 325: 249-10.1136/bmj.325.7358.249.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Tatsioni A, Siontis GC, Ioannidis JP: Partisan perspectives in the medical literature: a study of high frequency editorialists favoring hormone replacement therapy. J Gen Intern Med. 2010, 25: 914-919. 10.1007/s11606-010-1360-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Perlis RH, Perlis CS, Wu Y, Hwang C, Joseph M, Nierenberg AA: Industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest in the reporting of clinical trials in psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry. 2005, 162: 1957-1960. 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.10.1957.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kuehn BM: Harmonizing reporting of financial conflicts. JAMA. 2013, 309: 19-10.1001/jama.2012.156627.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Fontanarosa P: Implementation of the ICMJE form for reporting potential conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2010, 304: 1496-10.1001/jama.2010.1429.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Drazen J, de Leeuw PW, Laine C, Mulrow C, DeAngelis CD, Frizelle FA, Godlee F, Haug C, Hébert PC, James A, Kotzin S, Marusic A, Reyes H, Rosenberg J, Sahni P, Van der Weyden MB, Zhaori G: Toward more uniform conflict disclosures—the updated ICMJE conflict of interest reporting form. JAMA. 2010, 304: 212-213. 10.1001/jama.2010.918.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E: CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2008, 5: e20-10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D: CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010, 152: 726-732. 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Weinfurt KP, Seils DM, Tzeng JP, Lin L, Schulman KA, Califf RM: Consistency of financial interest disclosures in the biomedical literature: the case of coronary stents. PLoS One. 2008, 3: e2128-10.1371/journal.pone.0002128.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Forbes TL: Author disclosure of conflict of interest in vascular surgery journals. J VascSurg. 2011, 54: 55S-58S.

19.

Okike K, Kocher MS, Wei EX, Mehlman CT, Bhandari M: Accuracy of conflict-of-interest disclosures reported by physicians. N Engl J Med. 2009, 361: 1466-1474. 10.1056/NEJMsa0807160.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Chimonas S, Frosch Z, Rothman DJ: From disclosure to transparency: the use of company payment data. Arch Intern Med. 2011, 171: 81-86.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, Boutron I: Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2012, 344: e4178-10.1136/bmj.e4178.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Chaudhry S, Schroter S, Smith R, Morris J: Does declaration of competing interests affect readers’ perceptions? A randomised trial. BMJ. 2002, 325: 1391-1392. 10.1136/bmj.325.7377.1391.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Schroter S, Morris J, Chaudhry S, Smith R, Barratt H: Does the type of competing interest statement affect readers’ perceptions of the credibility of research? Randomised trial. BMJ. 2004, 328: 742-743. 10.1136/bmj.38035.705185.F6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Kesselheim AS, Robertson CT, Myers JA, Rose SL, Gillet V, Ross KM, Glynn RJ, Joffe S, Avorn J: A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures. N Engl J Med. 2012, 367: 1119-1127. 10.1056/NEJMsa1202397.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Silverman GK, Loewenstein GF, Anderson BL, Ubel PA, Zinberg S, Schulkin J: Failure to discount for conflict of interest when evaluating medical literature: a randomised trial of physicians. J Med Ethics. 2010, 36: 265-270. 10.1136/jme.2009.034496.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Miller RG: Simultaneous Statistical Inference. 1981, New York: Springer New YorkCrossRef

27.

Team RC: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2012, Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing

28.

Barry HC, Ebell MH, Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC, Nietzke F: Family physicians’ use of medical abstracts to guide decision making: style or substance?. J Am Board FamPract. 1998, 14: 437-442.

29.

Ebell MH, Barry HC, Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF: Finding POEMs in the medical literature. J FamPract. 1999, 48: 350-355.

30.

The impact of open access upon public health. PLoS Med. 2006, 3: e252.

31.

Thompson D: Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med. 1993, 329: 573-576. 10.1056/NEJM199308193290812.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Loewenstein G, Sah S, Cain DM: The unintended consequences of conflict of interest disclosure. JAMA. 2012, 307: 669-670. 10.1001/jama.2012.154.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Charles P, Giraudeau B, Dechartres A, Baron G, Ravaud P: Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review. BMJ. 2009, 338: b1732-10.1136/bmj.b1732.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/69/prepub

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
Authors: Céline Buffel du Vaure
Isabelle Boutron
Elodie Perrodeau
Philippe Ravaud
Publication date: 01-12-2014
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-69

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial Registration

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial Registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Along with the privilege of authorship come important responsibilities

Visual impairment is associated with physical and mental comorbidities in older adults: a cross-sectional study

A new noninvasive technique for estimating hepatic triglyceride: will liver biopsy become redundant in diagnosing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease?

The impact of dialysis therapy on older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: a nationwide population-based study

The ethics and editorial challenges of internet-based research

Using verbal autopsy to measure causes of death: the comparative performance of existing methods