Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. Effect of a US National Institutes of Health programme of clinical trials on public health and costs. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. Quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in cerebral palsy. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I: Medical.
Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions.
                To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events.
                Observational study of 370 randomized drug trials included in meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews selected from the Cochrane Library, May 2001. From a random sample of 167 Cochrane reviews, 25 contained eligible meta-analyses (assessed a binary outcome; pooled at least 5 full-paper trials of which at least 1 reported adequate and 1 reported inadequate allocation concealment). The primary binary outcome from each meta-analysis was considered the primary outcome for all trials included in each meta-analysis. The association between funding and conclusions was analyzed by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment effect, adverse events, and additional confounding factors (methodological quality, control intervention, sample size, publication year, and place of publication).
                Conclusions in trials, classified into whether the experimental drug was recommended as the treatment of choice or not.
                The experimental drug was recommended as treatment of choice in 16% of trials funded by nonprofit organizations, 30% of trials not reporting funding, 35% of trials funded by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations, and 51% of trials funded by for-profit organizations (P<.001; chi2 test). Logistic regression analyses indicated that funding, treatment effect, and double blinding were the only significant predictors of conclusions. Adjusted analyses showed that trials funded by for-profit organizations were significantly more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice (odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-14.4) compared with trials funded by nonprofit organizations. This association did not appear to reflect treatment effect or adverse events.
                Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results. Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in randomized trials are supported by data. Substantial numbers of clinical trials continue to be reported only in summary reports that present insufficient methodological details to permit informed judgments about the likely validity of the conclusions. Using a cohort of 176 controlled trials reported in summary form, we tested the hypotheses that they would be more likely to be followed by full reports if, on the basis of the information provided in the summary report, (1) the trial was judged to be methodologically sound, (2) the results favored the test treatment, and (3) the sample size was relatively large. The results of univariate and multivariate analyses provided support for only the third of these hypotheses. Investigators, as well as those who fund and sanction the conduct of clinical research, should make greater efforts to ensure that clinical trials are reported properly. Few attempts have been made to estimate the public return on investment in medical research. The total costs and benefits to society of a clinical trial, the final step in testing an intervention, can be estimated by evaluating the effect of trial results on medical care and health.
                All phase III randomised trials funded by the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke before Jan 1, 2000, were included. Pertinent publications on use, cost to society, and health effects for each studied intervention were identified by systematic review, supplemented with data from other public and proprietary sources. Regardless of whether a trial was positive or negative, information on use of tested therapies was integrated with published per-use data on costs and health effect (converted to 2004 US dollars) to generate 10-year projections for the US population.
                28 trials with a total cost of 335 million dollars were included. Six trials (21%) resulted in measurable improvements in health, and four (14%) resulted in cost savings to society. At 10 years, the programme of trials resulted in an estimated additional 470,000 quality-adjusted life years at a total cost of 3.6 billion dollars (including costs of all trials and additional health-care and other expenditures). Valuing a quality-adjusted life year at per-head gross domestic product, the projected net benefit to society at 10-years was 15.2 billion dollars. 95% CIs did not include a net loss at 10 years.
                For this institute, the public return on investment in clinical trials has been substantial. Although results led to increases in health-care expenditures, health gains were large and valuable. Because of recent concerns about conflicts of interest and published research, the author analyzed 107 controlled clinical trials. Studies were classified as favoring either a new therapy or a traditional therapy, and as being supported by a pharmaceutical manufacturer or as being generally supported. Seventy-one per cent of the trials favored new therapies; 43% of these were funded by pharmaceutical firms. Of the 31 trials favoring traditional therapy, only four (13%) were supported by a pharmaceutical firm. There was a statistically significant association between the source of funding and the outcome of the study (p = 0.002). Few trials supported by pharmaceutical manufacturers favored traditional therapy; some reasons for this finding may include selection of drugs likely to be proven efficacious, Type II errors (false-negative studies), and fear of discontinuation of funding should such studies be submitted. Important clinical information may be lost if negative studies are not published. Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials (a Bayesian interpretation for accumulating evidence) will profoundly affect medical care by summarizing evidence in the assessment of technology innovations. Application of the technique to the randomized control trials (RCTs) of streptokinase treatment of acute myocardial infarction, reduction of peri-operative mortality by antibiotic prophylaxis, and prevention of death from bleeding peptic ulcers has revealed efficacy years before it was suspected by any other means. Arrangement of the trials according to event rate in the controls, effect sizes, quality of the trials or according to covariables of interest has supplied unique information. If carried out prospectively the technique supplies invaluable information regarding indications for another trial, the number of patients necessary to determine the validity of past trends, and the type of patients who might be benefitted. Careful examination in a cumulative manner of the prior trials can reduce the need for future large trials. In conducting reviews on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on children with cerebral palsy, the assessment of trials can be hampered by problems in reporting. Therefore, we set out to evaluate trial reporting by using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement recommendations.
                Randomized, controlled trials published in 1990 or later were identified in literature searches for reviews on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on children with cerebral palsy. Two independent reviewers evaluated the trial reporting by using a modified 33-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist.
                We identified 15 randomized, controlled trials. Almost half (48%) of the applicable items were reported adequately. Inadequate reporting was found in the following items: outcome measures, sample-size determination, details of the sequence generation, allocation concealment and implementation of the randomization, success of assessor blinding, recruitment and follow-up dates, intention-to-treat analysis, precision of the effect size, co-interventions, and adverse events.
                Only a small number of sufficiently reported trials were found. Because nearly all items had been described in at least 1 article, high-quality reporting seems feasible. Assessment of trials depends on appropriate reporting, and poor reporting jeopardizes judgments on the clinical implications. Authors of randomized, controlled trials are encouraged to follow the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials criteria. There is a clear need to improve the quality of reporting of trials in this field. As of 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required investigators to register their trials prior to participant enrollment as a precondition for publishing the trial's findings in member journals.
                To assess the proportion of registered trials with results recently published in journals with high impact factors; to compare the primary outcomes specified in trial registries with those reported in the published articles; and to determine whether primary outcome reporting bias favored significant outcomes.
                MEDLINE via PubMed was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 3 medical areas (cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology) indexed in 2008 in the 10 general medical journals and specialty journals with the highest impact factors.
                For each included article, we obtained the trial registration information using a standardized data extraction form.
                Of the 323 included trials, 147 (45.5%) were adequately registered (ie, registered before the end of the trial, with the primary outcome clearly specified). Trial registration was lacking for 89 published reports (27.6%), 45 trials (13.9%) were registered after the completion of the study, 39 (12%) were registered with no or an unclear description of the primary outcome, and 3 (0.9%) were registered after the completion of the study and had an unclear description of the primary outcome. Among articles with trials adequately registered, 31% (46 of 147) showed some evidence of discrepancies between the outcomes registered and the outcomes published. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in only half of them and in these statistically significant results were favored in 82.6% (19 of 23).
                Comparison of the primary outcomes of RCTs registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent. Selective reporting of outcomes within published studies based on the nature or direction of their results has been widely suspected, but direct evidence of such bias is currently limited to case reports.
                To study empirically the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias in a cohort of randomized trials.
                Cohort study using protocols and published reports of randomized trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, Denmark, in 1994-1995. The number and characteristics of reported and unreported trial outcomes were recorded from protocols, journal articles, and a survey of trialists. An outcome was considered incompletely reported if insufficient data were presented in the published articles for meta-analysis. Odds ratios relating the completeness of outcome reporting to statistical significance were calculated for each trial and then pooled to provide an overall estimate of bias. Protocols and published articles were also compared to identify discrepancies in primary outcomes.
                Completeness of reporting of efficacy and harm outcomes and of statistically significant vs nonsignificant outcomes; consistency between primary outcomes defined in the most recent protocols and those defined in published articles.
                One hundred two trials with 122 published journal articles and 3736 outcomes were identified. Overall, 50% of efficacy and 65% of harm outcomes per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared with nonsignificant outcomes for both efficacy (pooled odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.0) and harm (pooled odds ratio, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.8-12.0) data. In comparing published articles with protocols, 62% of trials had at least 1 primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. Eighty-six percent of survey responders (42/49) denied the existence of unreported outcomes despite clear evidence to the contrary.
                The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols. Published articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention. To ensure transparency, planned trials should be registered and protocols should be made publicly available prior to trial completion. We analysed 113 reports published in 1980 in a sample of medical journals to relate features of study design to the magnitude of gains attributed to new therapies over old. Overall we rated 87 per cent of new therapies as improvements over standard therapies. The mean gain (measured by the Mann-Whitney statistic) was relatively constant across study designs, except for non-randomized controlled trials with sequential assignment to therapy, which showed a significantly higher likelihood that a patient would do better on the innovation than on standard therapy (p = 0.004). Randomized controlled trials that did not use a double-blind design had a higher likelihood of showing a gain for the innovation than did double-blind trials (p = 0.02). Any evaluation of an innovation may include both bias and the true efficacy of the new therapy, therefore we may consider making adjustments for the average bias associated with a study design. When interpreting an evaluation of a new therapy, readers should consider the impact of the following average adjustments to the Mann-Whitney statistic: for trials with non-random sequential assignment a decrease of 0.15, for non-double-blind randomized controlled trials a decrease of 0.11.
Most trials have been designed and reported so poorly that they are inconclusive. There is a need for large well conducted studies that evaluate long-term effects of current therapies to improve quality and standardization of methods.