Article Text

PDF
Evaluating solutions to sponsorship bias
  1. M Doucet1,
  2. S Sismondo2
  1. 1
    Department of Philosophy, John Watson Hall, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2
    Department of Philosophy, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
  1. Mr M Doucet, Department of Philosophy, John Watson Hall, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6; 1wmd1{at}queensu.ca

Abstract

More than 40 primary studies, and three recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses, have shown a clear association between pharmaceutical industry funding of clinical trials and pro-industry results. Industry sponsorship biases published scientific research in favour of the sponsors, a result of the strong interest commercial sponsors have in obtaining favourable results.

Three proposed remedies to this problem are widely agreed upon among those concerned with the level of sponsorship bias: financial disclosure, reporting standards and trial registries. This paper argues that all of these remedies either fail to address the mechanisms by which pharmaceutical companies’ sponsorship leads to biased results—design bias, multiple trials with predictable outcomes, fraud, rhetorical effects and publication bias—or else only inadequately address those mechanisms. As a result, the policies normally proposed for dealing with sponsorship bias are unable to eliminate it. Only completely separating public clinical research from pharmaceutical industry funding can eliminate sponsorship bias.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding: Support: This research was supported in part by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

  • Competing interests: None.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.