This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Industry sponsorship more often associated with positive results in nutrition studies
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Data published in JAMA Internal Medicine suggest that industry-sponsored nutrition research is more likely to draw outcomes that are more favorable to the industry than studies without conflicts of interest.
“Recent scrutiny of the funding practices of transnational food companies has heightened concerns about the credibility of nutrition research and how sponsorship affects the findings,” Nicholas Chartres, MHumNutr, from the Charles Perkins Centre at the University of Sydney, and colleagues wrote. “It is important to know whether funding source influences the statistical significance of the results or the effect sizes of nutrition studies and should, therefore, be considered when biases in these studies are assessed.”
Chartres and colleagues searched several databases from inception to October 2015 for reports that quantitatively compared industry- and non-industry-sponsored primary nutrition research studies or reviews to investigate the influence of industry sponsorship on effect sizes, statistical significance of results, overall outcomes and conclusions that favor the sponsor.
The researchers reviewed 775 reports, of which 12 met the inclusion criteria. These reports had quality ratings ranging from 1 to 4 on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine scale (highest rating, 1; lowest rating, 5).
Data from two reports found no association between industry-sponsored studies and the statistical significance of results. According to findings from one report that included 88 studies, industry-sponsored studies found significantly smaller harmful effect sizes for energy intake and body weight in relationship to sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Furthermore, findings from eight reports based on 340 studies, combined in meta-analyses, revealed a higher incidence of sponsorship-favored conclusions among studies that were industry-sponsored compared with non-industry-sponsored studies (RR = 1.31; 95% CI, 0.99-1.72). In five reports, methodological quality was not associated with industry-sponsored studies.
“Although industry-sponsored studies were more likely to have conclusions favorable to industry than non-industry-sponsored studies, the difference was not significant,” Chartres and colleagues concluded. “There was also insufficient evidence to assess the quantitative effect of industry sponsorship on the results and quality of nutrition research. These findings suggest, but do not establish that industry sponsorship of nutrition studies is associated with conclusions that favor the sponsors, and further investigation of differences in study results and quality is needed.” – by Alaina Tedesco
Disclosure: Chartres reports receiving a scholarship from the University of Sydney. Please see full study for a complete list of all other authors’ relevant financial disclosures.
Perspective
Back to Top
Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, MPH, MPA, FAAP, FTOS
As previously noted in the pharmaceutical and tobacco industry, there has been concern that studies conducted with sponsorship from the food industry have considerable bias. In this systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Chartres and colleagues sought to determine if industry sponsorship influences the results of nutrition studies with particular attention to statistical significance, effect sizes, and conclusions in these studies.
While 775 reports were initially reviewed, only 12 met the inclusion criteria, and only one study was industry-funded. Of the two high-quality systematic reviews included that examined the association between industry sponsorship and statistical significance of the results, neither of them found such an association. In the one study that examined the effect size in industry vs. non-industry-sponsored studies, there was no significant difference noted. Finally, in their review, eight reports, which included 340 studies, found that while industry sponsored studies were more likely to have favorable conclusions than non-industry-sponsored studies, the difference was not statistically significant.
While it has been previously presumed that industry-sponsored nutrition studies portend bias that favors the food industry, this current analysis and review are unable to support this hypothesis. It is certain that this topic will continue to be investigated for years to come to ensure that studies that have the potential to impact chronic disease burden are not biased in the favor of industry at the expense of the health of the population.
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts