corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 6848

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Dorman PJ, Counsell C, Sandercock P.
Reports of randomized trials in acute stroke, 1955 to 1995:What proportions were commercially sponsored?
Stroke 1999; 30:1995-8
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/10/1995


Abstract:

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Research in acute stroke has expanded rapidly. Many potentially important interventions lack commercial potential (eg, admission to a stroke unit). We therefore wished to examine the frequency of reports of randomized trials of interventions for acute stroke over the past 40 years, the source of support for such trials, the reporting of the commercial involvement, and whether the proportion of commercially supported trials had changed. METHODS: Eligible trials were identified from the Cochrane Stroke Group’s specialized register of controlled clinical trials. We included all randomized trials in patients with acute stroke which published a full text report, in English, between 1955 and 1995. Two reviewers independently extracted data on the involvement of the pharmaceutical industry in all eligible trials. RESULTS: There was a substantial increase in the number of acute stroke trials published per year between 1955 and 1995. The description of pharmaceutical industry involvement in each trial report was poor. Only a minority of supported trials made explicit statements about the role of the sponsoring company. The proportion of trials apparently supported by the pharmaceutical industry has increased substantially. CONCLUSIONS: The increasingly important role of the pharmaceutical industry in evaluating new treatments gives substantial scope for bias and may not be in the interests of public health. Poor reporting of the sponsor’s involvement suggests that modifications to the guidelines for the reporting of randomized controlled trials to include more details of the sponsor’s involvement in the design, conduct, management, analysis, and reporting of the trial are justified.

Keywords:
*systematic review/drug company sponsored research/clinical trials/stroke/SPONSORSHIP: RESEARCH Acute Disease Cerebrovascular Accident/economics Cerebrovascular Accident/therapy* Economics, Pharmaceutical* Great Britain Humans Randomized Controlled Trials/economics* Registries Research Support* Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend