Industry sponsorship and research outcome.

By Andreas Lundh, S. Sismondo, J. Lexchin, O. Busuioc, L. Bero. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012

1,063 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/440980997dc39b7758017b34016ec0f9bc0fbb7f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019, background): “14 15 For this reason, we excluded some trial features, such as funding source and single-versus multi-centre status, that have been associated empirically with trial effect estimates from trials.”
Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods (2014, background): “The bias risk domains generation of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and treatment providers, blinding of outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data (see paragraph below), selective outcome reporting, and industry funding have been shown to be of particular impor”
Empirically Supported Treatment: Recommendations for a New Model (2015, background): “…occurs across areas of research, and its inﬂuence has been well documented in the evidence on pharmaceutical products, where a clear bias for trials favorable to a sponsored product has been demonstrated (Lex-chin, Bero, Djulbegovic, & Clark, 2003; Lundh, Sis-mondo, Lexchin, Busuioc, & Bero, 2012).”
Evidence-based guidelines for treating bipolar disorder: revised third edition Recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology (2009, unknown): “Indeed, for dopamine antagonists and serotonin re-uptake inhibitors there were no differences in effect size between industrysupported and non-industry-supported trials when the designs were similar (Lundh et al., 2012).”