Report
Extent and impact of industry sponsorship conflicts of interest in dermatology research

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2005.01.020Get rights and content

Background

Many published clinical trials are authored by investigators with financial conflicts of interest. The general medical literature documents the pervasive extent and sometimes problematic impact of these conflicts. Accordingly, there is renewed discussion about author disclosure and clinical trial registry to minimize publication bias from financial conflicts of interest. Despite this evolving discussion in the general medical literature, little is known about the extent or role of financial conflicts of interest in dermatology research.

Objective

Our purpose was to determine the extent and impact of industry sponsorship conflicts of interest in dermatology research.

Methods

We recorded potential financial conflicts of interest, study design, and study outcome in 179 clinical trials published between Oct 1, 2000 and Oct 1, 2003 in four leading dermatology journals.

Results

Forty-three percent of analyzed studies included at least one author with a reported conflict of interest. These studies were more likely to report a positive result, demonstrate higher methodological quality, and include a larger sample size.

Conclusions

Conflict of interest in clinical investigations in dermatology appears to be prevalent and associated with potentially significant differences in study methodology and reporting.

Section snippets

Methods

The four dermatology journals with the highest 2002 science citation impact factor scores and total citations were identified for study inclusion: Journal of Investigative Dermatology (3.747; 15,803), Archives of Dermatology (2.761; 10,626), British Journal of Dermatology (2.696; 11,364), and Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (2.421; 12,791).15 The number was limited to four top journals because there was a substantially greater drop-off in the number of total citations between the

Results

In total, 192 studies were identified through the MEDLINE search and reviewed. After abstracts from these studies were retrieved, 13 were excluded. Reasons for exclusion included reanalysis of previously conducted trial (2), correspondence referring to a previously reported trial (1), or not an efficacy trial (10). This last category included, for example, trials evaluating biomarkers or screening protocols.

Of the remaining 179 studies, 102 (57%) reported receiving at least some industry

Discussion

We found that, of 179 evaluated trials published between October 2000 and October 2003, 57% were funded by industry sources, and 43% included at least one author with a reported conflict of interest. Potential conflict was associated with greater Jadad quality scores, primarily because of likelihood of double-blind design; greater number of study participants; and greater likelihood of reporting a result favorable to the study intervention.

The extent of conflict of interest arrangements in

References (28)

  • D. Rennie

    Thyroid storm

    JAMA

    (1997)
  • T. Bodenheimer

    Uneasy alliances: clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry

    N Engl J Med

    (2000)
  • L.A. Bero et al.

    Influences on the quality of published drug studies

    Int J Technol Assess Health Care

    (1996)
  • M. Lievre et al.

    Premature discontinuation of clinical trial for reasons not related to efficacy, safety, or feasibility

    BMJ

    (2001)
  • Cited by (0)

    Funding sources: None.

    Disclosure: Dr C. Perlis and Mr Harwood have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr R. Perlis has served on advisory boards for, or received speaker's fees or honoraria from, the following companies: AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly and Co, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. Dr R. Perlis has received research support from the following companies: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Co, and Elan/Eisai; and is supported by an NIMH K23 Career Development Award.

    View full text