Healthy Skepticism Library item: 12046

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

Epstein RA.
Influence of pharmaceutical funding on the conclusions of meta-analyses
BMJ 2007 Nov 16; epub ahead of print
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/bmj.39381.655845.BEv1

Abstract:

Original data are sound, but conclusions should be interpreted with caution

Differences in interpretation of results between meta-analyses funded by drug companies and those that are not rightly raise concerns about the reliability of studies funded by the industry.1 2 3 4 5

In their study on bmj.com, Yank and colleagues offer further proof of the potential influence that the drug industry has on the outcomes of the studies they fund.6 The study assesses the correlation between the “results” of meta-analyses about hypertensive drugs and the “conclusions” their authors draw from them. Even if we allow for the inevitable subjectivity of Yank and colleagues’ review of the included meta-analyses and for the other potential sources of bias they recognise-unblinded review and somewhat arbitrary measures of financial ties-the key findings are likely to be robust and will draw the ire of the many critics of the drug industry.

Yank and colleagues show that studies funded by a single drug company have a 55% rate of favourable . . .