This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Discrepancies found between industry-funded, non-industry-funded studies
Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;147(1):33-38.
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Differences were found in a review of abstracts from industry-funded and non-industry-funded studies of topical prostaglandins.
Researchers found that while 24% of industry-funded publications had a statistically significant main outcome measure, 90% of industry-funded studies had a pro-industry abstract conclusion. They also found that abstract conclusions of 62% of industry-funded studies were inconsistent with the studies' main outcome measures, compared with 0% of non-industry-funded studies.
"The discrepancy between the results of the main outcome measure and abstract conclusions stems from the interpretation of surrogate outcomes or multiple comparisons assigning undue attention to significant results, while minimizing non-significant results," the study authors said. "This is commonly referred to as 'spin.'"
Researchers conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study that examined 29 industry-funded studies and 10 non-industry-funded studies. The studies were English-language publications that compared the ocular hypotensive efficacy of any or all of three topical prostaglandin drugs: Xalatan (latanoprost ophthalmic solution 0.005%, Pfizer), Travatan (travoprost ophthalmic solution 0.004%, Alcon) and Lumigan (bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03%, Allergan). The studies were found through a search of the MEDLINE database.
Three independent observers reviewed and evaluated each study for quality, statistically significant main outcome measure, number of IOP outcomes compared, journal impact factor, how the main outcome measure and abstract conclusion compared, and source of funding.
Funding was determined by published disclosures or direct contact with the study's corresponding author.