ReportExtent and impact of industry sponsorship conflicts of interest in dermatology research
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)
Industry-funded dermatologic research within academia in the United States: fiscal and ethical considerations
J Invest Dermatol
(1992)- et al.
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?
Control Clin Trials
(1996) - et al.
Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?
Lancet
(1998) - et al.
The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research
Lancet
(2000) - et al.
America's other drug problem: how the drug industry distorts medicine and politics
New Republic
(2002) - et al.
Disclosure of financial competing interests in randomised controlled trials: cross sectional review
BMJ
(2003) - et al.
Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results
J Gen Intern Med
(2004) - et al.
Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review
JAMA
(2003) FDA moves against Penn scientist
Science
(2000)Long-suppressed study finally sees light of day
Science
(1997)
Thyroid storm
JAMA
Uneasy alliances: clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry
N Engl J Med
Influences on the quality of published drug studies
Int J Technol Assess Health Care
Premature discontinuation of clinical trial for reasons not related to efficacy, safety, or feasibility
BMJ
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.