Dataset Information

The Relationship between Risk of Bias Criteria, Research Outcomes, and Study Sponsorship in a Cohort of Preclinical Thiazolidinedione Animal Studies: A Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

There is little evidence regarding the influence of conflicts of interest on preclinical research. This study examines whether industry sponsorship is associated with increased risks of bias and/or effect sizes of outcomes in published preclinical thiazolidinedione (TZD) studies.

Methods

We identified preclinical TZD studies published between January 1, 1965 and November 14, 2012. Coders independently extracted information on study design criteria aimed at reducing bias, results for all relevant outcomes, sponsorship source, and investigator financial ties from the 112 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The average standardized mean difference (SMD) across studies was calculated for plasma glucose (efficacy outcome) and weight gain (harm outcome). In subgroup analyses, TZD outcomes were assessed by sponsorship source and risk of bias criteria.

Results

Seven studies were funded by industry alone, 17 studies funded by both industry and non-industry, 49 studies funded by non-industry alone, and 39 studies had no disclosures. None of the studies used sample size calculations, intention-to-treat analyses, blinding of investigators, or concealment of allocation. Most studies reported favorable results (88 of 112) and conclusions (95 of 112) supporting TZD use. Efficacy estimates were significantly larger in 6 studies sponsored by industry alone (-3.41; 95% CI -5.21, -1.53; I² = 93%) versus 42 studies sponsored by non-industry sources (-0.97; 95% CI -1.37, -0.56; I² = 81%) (p value = 0.01). Harms estimates were significantly larger in 4 studies sponsored by industry alone (5.00; 95% CI 1.22, 8.77; I² = 93%) versus 38 studies sponsored by non-industry sources (0.30; 95% CI -0.08, 0.68; I² = 79%) (p value = 0.02). TZD efficacy and harms did not differ by disclosure of financial COIs or risks of bias.

Conclusions

Industry-sponsored TZD animal studies have exaggerated efficacy and harms outcomes compared to studies funded by non-industry sources. There was poor reporting of COIs.

SUBMITTER: Abdel-Sattar M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4306285 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA critical component of systematic review methodology is the assessment of the risks of bias of studies that are included in the review. There is controversy about whether funding source should be included in a risk of bias assessment of animal toxicology studies.ObjectiveTo determine whether industry research sponsorship is associated with methodological biases, the results, or conclusions of animal studies examining the effect of exposure to atrazine on reproductive or developmental outcomes.MethodsWe searched multiple electronic databases and the reference lists of relevant articles to identify original research studies examining the effect of any dose of atrazine exposure at any life stage on reproduction or development in non-human animals. We compared methodological risks of bias, the conclusions of the studies, the statistical significance of the findings, and the magnitude of effect estimates between industry sponsored and non-industry sponsored studies.ResultsFifty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. There were no differences in methodological risks of bias in industry versus non-industry sponsored studies. 39 studies tested environmentally relevant concentrations of atrazine (11 industry sponsored, 24 non-industry sponsored, 4 with no funding disclosures). Non-industry sponsored studies (12/24, 50.0%) were more likely to conclude that atrazine was harmful compared to industry sponsored studies (2/11, 18.1%) (p value=0.07). A higher proportion of non-industry sponsored studies reported statistically significant harmful effects (8/24, 33.3%) compared to industry-sponsored studies (1/11; 9.1%) (p value=0.13). The association of industry sponsorship with decreased effect sizes for harm outcomes was inconclusive.ConclusionOur findings support the inclusion of research sponsorship as a risk of bias criterion in tools used to assess risks of bias in animal studies for systematic reviews. The reporting of other empirically based risk of bias criteria for animal studies, such as blinded outcome assessment, randomization, and all animals included in analyses, needs to improve to facilitate the assessment of studies for systematic reviews.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular.Methods/designThe objectives of this systematic review are as follows: •To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. •To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. •To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews.DiscussionResults are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the risk of industry sponsorship bias in a systematically identified set of placebo controlled and active comparator trials of statins.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.EligibilityOpen label and double blind randomised controlled trials comparing one statin with another at any dose or with control (placebo, diet, or usual care) for adults with, or at risk of developing, cardiovascular disease. Only trials that lasted longer than four weeks with more than 50 participants per trial arm were included. Two investigators assessed study eligibility.Data sourcesBibliographic databases and reference lists of relevant articles published between 1 January 1985 and 10 March 2013.Data extractionOne investigator extracted data and another confirmed accuracy.Main outcome measureMean absolute change from baseline concentration of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.Data synthesisStudy level outcomes from randomised trials were combined using random effects network meta-analyses.ResultsWe included 183 randomised controlled trials of statins, 103 of which were two-armed or multi-armed active comparator trials. When all of the existing randomised evidence was synthesised in network meta-analyses, there were clear differences in the LDL cholesterol lowering effects of individual statins at different doses. In general, higher doses resulted in higher reductions in baseline LDL cholesterol levels. Of a total of 146 industry sponsored trials, 64 were placebo controlled (43.8%). The corresponding number for the non-industry sponsored trials was 16 (43.2%). Of the 35 unique comparisons available in 37 non-industry sponsored trials, 31 were also available in industry sponsored trials. There were no systematic differences in magnitude between the LDL cholesterol lowering effects of individual statins observed in industry sponsored versus non-industry sponsored trials. In industry sponsored trials, the mean change from baseline LDL cholesterol level was on average 1.77 mg/dL (95% credible interval -11.12 to 7.66) lower than the change observed in non-industry sponsored trials. There was no detectable inconsistency in the evidence network.ConclusionsOur analysis shows that the findings obtained from industry sponsored statin trials seem similar in magnitude as those in non-industry sources. There are actual differences in the effectiveness of individual statins at various doses that explain previously observed discrepancies between industry and non-industry sponsored trials.