Dataset Information

Index of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine industry clinical study programmes and non-industry funded studies: a necessary basis to address reporting bias in a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Unabridged access to drug industry and regulatory trial registers and data reduces reporting bias in systematic reviews and may provide a complete index of a drug's clinical study programme. Currently, there is no public index of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine industry study programmes or a public index of non-industry funded studies. METHODS:By cross-verification via study programme enquiries to the HPV vaccine manufacturers and regulators and searches of trial registers and journal publication databases, we indexed clinical HPV vaccine studies as a basis to address reporting bias in a systematic review of clinical study reports. RESULTS:We indexed 206 clinical studies: 145 industry and 61 non-industry funded studies. One of the four HPV vaccine manufacturers (GlaxoSmithKline) provided information on its study programme. Most studies were cross-verified from two or more sources (160/206, 78%) and listed on regulatory or industry trial registers or journal publication databases (195/206, 95%)-in particular, on ClinicalTrials.gov (176/195, 90%). However, study results were only posted for about half of the completed studies on ClinicalTrials.gov (71/147, 48%). Two thirds of the industry studies had a study programme ID, manufacturer specific ID, and national clinical trial (NCT) ID (91/145, 63%). Journal publications were available in journal publication databases (the Cochrane Collaboration's Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar and PubMed) for two thirds of the completed studies (92/149, 62%). CONCLUSION:We believe we came close to indexing complete HPV vaccine study programmes, but only one of the four manufacturers provided information for our index and a fifth of the index could not be cross-verified. However, we indexed larger study programmes than those listed by major regulators (i.e., the EMA and FDA that based their HPV vaccine approvals on only half of the available trials). To reduce reporting bias in systematic reviews, we advocate the registration and publication of all studies and data in the public domain.

SUBMITTER: Jorgensen L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5774129 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Index of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine industry clinical study programmes and non-industry funded studies: a necessary basis to address reporting bias in a systematic review.

Jørgensen Lars L Gøtzsche Peter C PC Jefferson Tom T

Systematic reviews 20180118 1

<h4>Background</h4>Unabridged access to drug industry and regulatory trial registers and data reduces reporting bias in systematic reviews and may provide a complete index of a drug's clinical study programme. Currently, there is no public index of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine industry study programmes or a public index of non-industry funded studies.<h4>Methods</h4>By cross-verification via study programme enquiries to the HPV vaccine manufacturers and regulators and searches of trial ...[more]

PMID: 29347995

Similar Datasets

Project description:To investigate whether adverse effects data for the sponsor's product are presented more favourably in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies than in non-industry-funded studies.We conducted a systematic review of methodological evaluations that had assessed the relationship between industry funding and the reported risk of adverse effects. Searches were undertaken in 10 databases and supplemented with other sources of information such as handsearching, citation searching, checking conference proceedings and discussion with experts. Two reviewers independently screened the records and carried out data extraction for potentially relevant papers. We included studies that compared the results and interpretation of the adverse effects data according to funding source (e.g. adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry research vs. data from nonprofit organizations, or from one manufacturer vs. another). Methodological evaluations were excluded if categories of funding source were not explicitly specified by the researchers, and if we were uncertain that industry-funded studies were present in the evaluation.The search strategy yielded 4,069 hits, of which six methodological evaluations met our inclusion criteria. One survey of 370 trials covering a wide range of topics found that trials with industry sponsors had more complete reporting of adverse effects compared with non-industry-funded trials, whereas another survey of 504 inhaled corticosteroid studies showed no apparent difference after confounding factors were adjusted for. In contrast, we found evidence from post hoc subgroup analyses involving two products where the likelihood of harm was of a lower magnitude in manufacturer-funded studies compared with nonmanufacturer-funded studies. There is also evidence from four methodological evaluations that authors with industry funding were more likely than authors without pharmaceutical funding to interpret and conclude that a drug was safe, even among studies that did find a statistically significant increase in adverse effects for the sponsored product.Our review indicates that industry funding may not be a major threat to bias in the reporting of the raw adverse effects data. However, we are concerned about potential bias in the interpretation and conclusions of industry-funded authors and studies.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether published results of industry funded trials of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2) in spinal fusion match underlying trial data by comparing three different data sources: individual participant data, internal industry reports, and publicly available journal publications and conference abstracts.Data collection and synthesisThe manufacturer of rhBMP-2 products (Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN) provided complete individual participant data and internal reports for all its studies of rhMBP-2 in spinal fusion. We identified publications and conference abstracts through comprehensive literature searches. We compared outcomes provided in the individual participant data against outcomes reported in publications. For effectiveness outcomes, we compared meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials based on each of the three data sources. For adverse events, meta-analysis of the published aggregate data was not possible and we compared the number and type of adverse events reported between data sources.Results32 publications reported outcomes from 11 of the 17 existing manufacturer sponsored studies. For individual randomised controlled trials, 56% (9/16) to 88% (15/17) of effectiveness outcomes known to have been collected were reported in the published literature. Meta-analyses of effectiveness data were almost identical for pain outcomes and similar for fusion across the three data sources. A minority of adverse event data known to have been collected were reported in the published literature. Several journal articles reported only "serious," "related," or "unanticipated" adverse events, without defining these terms. Others reported a small proportion of the collected adverse event categories. Around 23% (533/2302) of the total adverse events collected in published randomised controlled trials have been reported in the literature, with randomised controlled trials evaluating the licensed preparation (Infuse) reporting around 11% (122/1108) of collected adverse events.ConclusionsThe published literature only partially represents the total data known to have been collected on the effects of rhBMP-2. This did not lead to substantially different results for meta-analysis of effectiveness outcomes. In contrast, reporting of adverse event data in trial publications was inadequate and inconsistent to the extent that any systematic review based solely on the publicly available data would not be able to properly evaluate the safety of rhBMP-2. Analysis of individual participant data enabled the most complete, detailed, and in-depth analysis and was not more resource intensive than extracting, collating, and analysing aggregate data from multiple trial publications and conference abstracts. Confidential internal reports presented considerably more adverse event data than publications, and in the absence of individual participant data access to these reports would support more accurate and reliable investigation, with less time and effort than relying on incomplete published data.

Project description:Background: Redesigning the agri-food system through agroecology represents a common ambition among practitioners, activists and scholars to achieve environmental and socio-economic sustainability. Research can have a main role to support this path. Although it seems that there is a gradual increasing body of agroecology research, it clearly lacks good knowledge about this. The main objective of this study was therefore to map research projects related to agroecology in Europe with the aim to characterize European research in terms of implementation of agroecology elements, identify needs for future cross collaboration between countries and networks, and support the setting up of appropriate research agendas fostering agroecology research in Europe. Methods: A desktop research with different databases related to European and transnational funding programmes was carried out to identify funded research projects involved in agroecology. The obtained projects were used to perform a social network analysis. Furthermore, two surveys were conducted, one with coordinators of identified projects and a second one for researchers engaged in agroecology. Results: Our study highlighted a predominant trajectory of agroecology research prone to the transformation of the agri-food system. France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and United Kingdom were the most active countries engaged in agroecology research. In all surveys, issues related to efficiency improvement, synergies strengthening, local economy development, and co-creation and sharing of knowledge were the most implemented to support agri-food transformation. Transdisciplinary approaches were mainly addressed by European projects. Surveys reported a limited participation of value chain actors, while researchers, farmers, and their associations were the most involved. Survey respondents suggested to increase project duration and introduce flexibility methods to modulate research actions according to dynamic of the contexts. Conclusion: On the basis of the results, some policy recommendations were provided to fostering agroecology research in Europe and its contribution for transformation of agri-foods systems.

Project description:ObjectivesTo provide a participant's account of the development of a paper commissioned by the tobacco industry examining the reliability of self reported smoking status; to redress the distorted report of this Japanese spousal smoking study which evaluated the reliability and validity of self reported smoking status, and estimated confounding by diet and lifestyle factors.DesignRepeated interviews on smoking status and its verification by environmental and biological markers for environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure.SettingUrban wives in Osaka City and Sizuoka City, JapanParticipantsSemi-random sampling of 200 wives in each city. From the Osaka subjects, 100 non-smoking wives were selected for the validity study.Main outcome measuresKappa coefficient for reliability of self reported smoking status. Correlation coefficients between environmental nicotine concentration, cotinine in saliva and urine, and self reported smoking status.ResultsThe kappa coefficient for the repeated interview was high suggesting sufficient reliability of the response. The proportion of self reported current smokers misclassified as non-smokers was equivalent to the misclassified self reported non-smokers. Ambient concentration of nicotine and personal exposure to nicotine correlated with each other and also with salivary cotinine and self reported ETS exposure but not with urinary cotinine/creatinine ratio (CCR). There was no major difference in diet and lifestyle related to husband's smoking status.ConclusionSelf reported smoking status by Japanese wives shows high reliability. It also shows high validity when verified by both nicotine exposure and salivary cotinine, but not by CCR. A previous report questioning the credibility of self reported smoking status, based on questionable CCR, could thus be of dubious validity. In addition, possible dietary and lifestyle confounding factors associated with smoking husbands were not demonstrable, a finding not reported previously. Using all the data from this project changes the conclusion of the previous published report. In addition to the distortion of scientific findings by a tobacco industry affiliated researcher, anti-smoking campaigners made attempts to intimidate and suppress scientific activities. These distortions of science should be counteracted.

Dataset Information

Index of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine industry clinical study programmes and non-industry funded studies: a necessary basis to address reporting bias in a systematic review.

Publications

Index of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine industry clinical study programmes and non-industry funded studies: a necessary basis to address reporting bias in a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets