Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.

By J. Bekelman, Yan Li, C. Gross. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2003

1,844 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Marketing, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Pharmacology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9e2de9d74203829b50ea63a3c3d105f4f7fc441a

How researchers see this paper

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

In Marketing

1. Christian Leuz
2. Ben R. Martin
3. P. Gillman
4. Daniele Fanelli
5. Wolfgang Stroebe

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

1. Christian Leuz
2. Martin Kenney
3. Ben R. Martin
4. P. Gillman
5. Daniele Fanelli
6. Wolfgang Stroebe

In Pharmacology

1. Ben R. Martin
2. Christian Leuz
3. P. Gillman
4. Daniele Fanelli
5. Wolfgang Stroebe
6. P. Newton
7. John P. A. Ioannidis
8. C. Begley

Citations in the corpus

• THE SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTIVITY OF ACADEMIC INVENTORS: NEW EVIDENCE FROM ITALIAN DATA (2007, background): “4 For a comprehensive survey of studies finding negative effects of university–industry links on the quality of academic biomedical research see Bekelman et al. (2003).”
• Academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: A reassessment (2019, background): “A meta-analysis of biomedical research studies found that industry-funded studies are more likely to find positive results (Bekelman et al., 2003).”
• Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: a policy proposal for academic medical centers. (2006, background): “This is important because company-funded research is more likely to produce positive results and on occasion companies have restricted the dissemination of research results unfavorable to their products.(30) One might argue that such an approach simply transfers the pressure surrounding financial co”
• Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? (2003, neutral): “For-profit organizations 146 6 (5-6) 74 (50.”
• Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data (2010, background): “Quantitative studies have repeatedly shown that financial interests can influence the outcome of biomedical research [27,28] but they appear to have neglected the much more widespread conflict of interest created by scientists’ need to publish.”
• Tricyclic antidepressant pharmacology and therapeutic drug interactions updated (2007, result): “That result accords with a review covering 37 studies about sponsorship that showed a significant association between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions (Bekelman et al., 2003).”
• Student Evaluations of Teaching Encourages Poor Teaching and Contributes to Grade Inflation: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis (2020, background): “There is ample evidence from pharmaceutical research that funding sources influence research outcomes (e.g., Bekelman et al., 2003; Lundh et al., 2018).”
• Evidence-based policymaking: promise, challenges and opportunities for accounting and financial markets research** (2018, positive): “For instance, there is evidence that research funded by drug companies is associated with more positive drug effects (e.g. Bekelman et al. 2003, Sismondo 2008).”