4.4 Article

Self-declared stock ownership and association with positive trial outcome in randomized controlled trials with binary outcomes published in general medical journals: a cross-sectional study

Journal

TRIALS
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-2108-z

Keywords

Randomized controlled trials; RCTs; Industry funding; Conflict of interest; Employment; Stock ownership

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Describe the prevalence and types of conflicts of interest (COI) in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in general medical journals with a binary primary outcome and assess the association between conflicts of interest and favorable outcome. Methods: Parallel-group RCTs with a binary primary outcome published in three general medical journals during 2013-2015 were identified. COI type, funding source, and outcome were extracted. Binomial logistic regression model was performed to assess association between COI and funding source with outcome. Results: A total of 509 consecutive parallel-group RCTs were included in the study. COI was reported in 74% in mixed funded RCTs and in 99% in for-profit funded RCTs. Stock ownership was reported in none of the non-profit RCTs, in 7% of mixed funded RCTs, and in 50% of for-profit funded RCTs. Mixed-funded RCTs had employees from the funding company in 11% and for-profit RCTs in 76%. Multivariable logistic regression revealed that stock ownership in the funding company among any of the authors was associated with a favorable outcome (odds ratio = 3.53; 95% confidence interval = 1.59-7.86; p < 0.01). Conclusion: COI in for-profit funded RCTs is extensive, because the factors related to COI are not fully independent, a multivariable analysis should be cautiously interpreted. However, after multivariable adjustment only stock ownership from the funding company among authors is associated with a favorable outcome.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available