Self-declared stock ownership and association with positive trial outcome in randomized controlled studies with binary results posted in general medical journals a cross-sectional research

Self-declared stock ownership and association with positive trial outcome in randomized controlled studies with binary results posted in general medical journals a cross-sectional research

Trials amount 18, Article number 354 ( 2017 ) Cite this article



Describe the prevalence and kinds of conflicts of great interest (COI) in published randomized managed trials (RCTs) generally speaking medical journals by having a binary primary result and measure the association between conflicts of great interest and favorable outcome.


Parallel-group RCTs by having a binary outcome that is primary in three basic medical journals during 2013–2015 were identified. COI type, funding source, and result had been removed. Binomial regression that is logistic ended up being performed to evaluate association between COI and funding source with outcome.


A complete of 509 consecutive parallel-group RCTs were included in the study. COI was reported in 74% in mixed funded RCTs as well as in 99% in for-profit RCTs that is funded. Stock ownership had been reported in none of this non-profit RCTs, in 7% of mixed funded RCTs, and in 50% of for-profit funded RCTs. Mixed-funded RCTs had employees through the capital company in 11% and RCTs that is for-profit 76%. Multivariable logistic regression revealed that stock ownership in the money business among some of the authors was connected with a favorable result (odds ratio = 3.53; 95% self- confidence interval = 1.59–7.86; p


Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) financed by industry (for-profit) are related to more favorable outcomes compared with other forms of capital sources [1], partly explained by the use of surrogate endpoints ( e.g. biochemical, imaging) among studies financed by industry [2]. Moreover, declared conflict of great interest (COI) among writers of medical studies is related to favorable study conclusions [3,4,5]. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) developed, in 2009, an electronic form of financial disclosure to establish uniform reporting of competing interests with the submission of manuscripts, today mandatory in most journals to increase transparency in medical research. The form includes, and others, the reporting of personal charges, work, royalties, stock ownership and grants in order for the reader to consider each potential relationship between author and industry [6].

Most of the work that is previous COI and its own influence on result had been done before the introduction of structured disclosure types, that are now mandatory generally in most journals [7]. Now, it had been shown that studies on interventional cardiology devices with industry workers among authors had been prone to report outcomes that are favorable. The effect of COI on RCT research outcome is, nevertheless, still confusing. Further, it offers perhaps not been founded exactly how type that is different of might impact result in RCTs.

We performed a cross-sectional study to gauge the prevalence and types of disputes of interest in posted randomized managed trials (RCTs) in general medical journals having a binary primary result and also to assess the association between conflicts of interest and favorable outcome.


An experienced librarian carried out a systematic search pinpointing all RCTs published in three general medical journals Journal associated with American healthcare Association, The Lancet, plus the New England Journal of Medicine from January 2013 to September 2015, as previously reported [9]. The search was conducted by using the after expanded search phrases JAMA, Lancet, N Engl J Med, and randomized OR filtering and randomized for 2013/01/01 and 2015/09/23. One author (AlFD) reviewed the games and abstracts of all of the potential studies for inclusion. The next addition requirements had been used RCTs, parallel-group studies having a binary result. We considered a scholarly study to be randomized if the term random ended up being mentioned in the techniques area of the published article. The study had been conducted based on the PRISMA checklist (Additional file 1). The following exclusion requirements were used letters, abstracts, editorials, non-RCTs, and multi-arm-RCTs. Studies with a continuous variable as primary endpoint had been excluded. Financial relationship was defined in line with the definition reported within the ICMJE COI form, with relevant COI directly associated with for-profit organizations and for this work [10] that is submitted. A report had been reported as having COI if some of the writers possessed a disclosure of COI. Data removal had been performed by one author (AlFD). Information extraction was performed for kind of COI, funding source, and research outcome in a manner that is blinded. Research outcome had been evaluated first without familiarity with COI and funding. Then COI and money had been extracted blinded for outcome. Studies had been categorized as having a positive/negative research outcome based on being statistically significant and only the intervention in contrast to the control team in terms of the study outcome that is primary. All information were double-checked by one author (AnFD). COI was extracted from posted papers or online supplements. The following COI types are contained in the electronic ICMJE disclosure form if relevant funds, personal charges, financial help, other, pending patent, granted patent, licensed patent, royalties, stock ownership, and employee. We only considered COI that is self-declared the study. This research had not been registered in Prospero considering that the result wasn’t related to patient or medical outcome [11].

share post:

Deja una respuesta

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *