Industry-funded versus non-profit-funded critical care research: a meta-epidemiological overview.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Janiaud P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6182357 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Industry-funded versus non-profit-funded critical care research: a meta-epidemiological overview.
Janiaud Perrine P Cristea Ioana-Alinea IA Ioannidis John P A JPA
Intensive care medicine 20180827 10
<h4>Purpose</h4>To study the landscape of funding in intensive care research and assess whether the reported outcomes of industry-funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are more favorable.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically assembled meta-analyses evaluating any type of intervention in the critical care setting and reporting the source of funding for each included RCT. Furthermore, when the intervention was a drug or biologic, we searched also the original RCT articles, when their funding info ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeThe under-representation of Black people within critical care research limits the generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This meta-epidemiologic study investigated the proportionate representation of Black people enrolled at USA and Canadian study sites from high impact critical care RCTs.SourceWe searched for critical care RCTs published in general medicine and intensive care unit (ICU) journals between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020. We included RCTs that enrolled critically ill adults at USA or Canadian sites and provided race-based demographic data by study site. We compared study-based racial demographics with site-level city-based demographics and pooled representation of Black people across studies, cities, and centres using a random effects model. We used meta-regression to explore the impact of the following variables on Black representation in critical care RCTs: country, drug intervention, consent model, number of centres, funding, study site city, and year of publication.Principal findingsWe included 21 eligible RCTs. Of these, 17 enrolled at only USA sites, two at only Canadian sites, and two at both USA and Canadian sites. Black people were under-represented in critical care RCTs by 6% compared with population-based city demographics (95% confidence interval, 1 to 11). Using meta-regression, after controlling for pertinent variables, the country of the study site was the only significant source of heterogeneity (P = 0.02).ConclusionBlack people are under-represented in critical care RCTs compared with site-level city-based demographics. Interventions are required to ensure adequate Black representation in critical care RCTs at both USA and Canadian study sites. Further research is needed to investigate the factors contributing to Black under-representation in critical care RCTs.
| S-EPMC10180607 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION: Small-study effects refer to the fact that trials with limited sample sizes are more likely to report larger beneficial effects than large trials. However, this has never been investigated in critical care medicine. Thus, the present study aimed to examine the presence and extent of small-study effects in critical care medicine. METHODS: Critical care meta-analyses involving randomized controlled trials and reported mortality as an outcome measure were considered eligible for the study. Component trials were classified as large (?100 patients per arm) and small (<100 patients per arm) according to their sample sizes. Ratio of odds ratio (ROR) was calculated for each meta-analysis and then RORs were combined using a meta-analytic approach. ROR<1 indicated larger beneficial effect in small trials. Small and large trials were compared in methodological qualities including sequence generating, blinding, allocation concealment, intention to treat and sample size calculation. RESULTS: A total of 27 critical care meta-analyses involving 317 trials were included. Of them, five meta-analyses showed statistically significant RORs <1, and other meta-analyses did not reach a statistical significance. Overall, the pooled ROR was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.68); the heterogeneity was moderate with an I2 of 50.3% (chi-squared = 52.30; P = 0.002). Large trials showed significantly better reporting quality than small trials in terms of sequence generating, allocation concealment, blinding, intention to treat, sample size calculation and incomplete follow-up data. CONCLUSIONS: Small trials are more likely to report larger beneficial effects than large trials in critical care medicine, which could be partly explained by the lower methodological quality in small trials. Caution should be practiced in the interpretation of meta-analyses involving small trials.
| S-EPMC4056100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies have shown that industry-sponsored meta-analyses of drugs lack scientific rigour and have biased conclusions. However, these studies have been restricted to certain medical specialities. We compared all industry-supported meta-analyses of drug-drug comparisons with those without industry support.MethodsWe searched PubMed for all meta-analyses that compared different drugs or classes of drugs published in 2004. Two authors assessed the meta-analyses and independently extracted data. We used a validated scale for judging the methodological quality and a binary scale for judging conclusions. We divided the meta-analyses according to the type of support in 3 categories: industry-supported, non-profit support or no support, and undeclared support.ResultsWe included 39 meta-analyses. Ten had industry support, 18 non-profit or no support, and 11 undeclared support. On a 0-7 scale, the median quality score was 6 for meta-analyses with non-profit or no support and 2.5 for the industry-supported meta-analyses (P < 0.01). Compared with industry-supported meta-analyses, more meta-analyses with non-profit or no support avoided bias in the selection of studies (P = 0.01), more often stated the search methods used to find studies (P = 0.02), searched comprehensively (P < 0.01), reported criteria for assessing the validity of the studies (P = 0.02), used appropriate criteria (P = 0.04), described methods of allocation concealment (P = 0.05), described methods of blinding (P = 0.05), and described excluded patients (P = 0.08) and studies (P = 0.15). Forty percent of the industry-supported meta-analyses recommended the experimental drug without reservations, compared with 22% of the meta-analyses with non-profit or no support (P = 0.57).In a sensitivity analysis, we contacted the authors of the meta-analyses with undeclared support. Eight who replied that they had not received industry funding were added to those with non-profit or no support, and 3 who did not reply were added to those with industry support. This analysis did not change the results much.ConclusionTransparency is essential for readers to make their own judgment about medical interventions guided by the results of meta-analyses. We found that industry-supported meta-analyses are less transparent than meta-analyses with non-profit support or no support.
| S-EPMC2553412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Cochrane risk of bias tool is a prominent instrument used to evaluate potential biases in clinical trials. In three updates of our Cochrane review on neuraminidase inhibitors, we assessed risk of bias on the same trials using different levels of detail: the trials in journal publications, in core reports, and in full clinical study reports. Here we analyse whether progressively greater amounts of information and detail in full clinical study reports (including trial protocols, statistical analysis plans, certificates of analyses, individual participant data listings and randomisation lists) affected our risk of bias assessments.Methods and findingsWe used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess and compare risk of bias in 14 oseltamivir trials (reported in 10 clinical study reports) obtained from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the manufacturer, Roche. With more detailed information, reported in clinical study reports, no previous assessment of 'high' risk of bias was reclassified as 'low' or 'unclear' in the main analysis, and over half (55%, 34/62) of the previous assessments of 'low' risk of bias were reclassified as 'high'. Most assessments of 'unclear' risk of bias (67%, or 28/42) were reclassified as 'high' risk of bias when our judgements were based on full clinical study reports. The limits of our study were our relative inexperience in dealing with large information sets, sometimes subjective bias judgements and focus on industry trials. Comparison with journal publications was not possible because of the low number of trials published.ConclusionsWe found that as information increased in the document, this increased our assessment of bias. This may mean that risk of bias has been insufficiently assessed in Cochrane reviews based on journal publications.
| S-EPMC4179405 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCancer patients and survivors with food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation-related barriers face challenges in access and utilization of quality cancer care thereby adversely impacting their health outcomes. This portfolio analysis synthesized and described National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supported social risk research focused on assessing food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation-related barriers among individuals diagnosed with cancer.MethodsWe conducted a query using the National Institutes of Health iSearch tool to identify NCI-awarded extramural research and training grants (2010-2022). Grant abstracts, specific aims, and research strategies were coded for research characteristics, study population, and outcomes.ResultsOf the 30 grants included in this analysis, most assessed transportation-related barriers as patient-level social needs. Grants focused on community-level social risks, food insecurity, and housing instability were largely absent. Most grants included activities that identified the presence of social risks and/or needs (n = 24), connected patients to social care resources (n = 10), and engaged community members or organizations to inform the research study (n = 9). Of the grants, 18 focused on a single type of cancer, primarily breast cancer, and more than half focused on the treatment and survivorship phases.ConclusionsIn the last decade, there has been limited NCI-funded social risk research grants focused on food insecurity and housing instability. Findings highlight opportunities for future cancer care delivery research, including community and health system-level approaches that integrate social and clinical care to address social risks and social needs. Such efforts can help improve outcomes of populations that experience cancer health and health-care disparities.
| S-EPMC9949593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:It has been shown that patients cared for at private for-profit hospitals have higher risk-adjusted mortality rates than those cared for at private not-for-profit hospitals. Uncertainty remains, however, about the economic implications of these forms of health care delivery. Since some policy-makers might still consider for-profit health care if expenditure savings were sufficiently large, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare payments for care at private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals. METHODS:We used 6 search strategies to identify published and unpublished observational studies that directly compared the payments for care at private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals. We masked the study results before teams of 2 reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility of all studies. We confirmed data or obtained additional data from all but 1 author. For each study, we calculated the payments for care at private for-profit hospitals relative to private not-for-profit hospitals and pooled the results using a random effects model. RESULTS:Eight observational studies, involving more than 350 000 patients altogether and a median of 324 hospitals each, fulfilled our eligibility criteria. In 5 of 6 studies showing higher payments for care at private for-profit hospitals, the difference was statistically significant; in 1 of 2 studies showing higher payments for care at private not-for-profit hospitals, the difference was statistically significant. The pooled estimate demonstrated that private for-profit hospitals were associated with higher payments for care (relative payments for care 1.19, 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.33, p = 0.001). INTERPRETATION:Private for-profit hospitals result in higher payments for care than private not-for-profit hospitals. Evidence strongly supports a policy of not-for-profit health care delivery at the hospital level.
| S-EPMC419772 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeSince the introduction of the first prosthetic mesh for abdominal hernia repair, there has been a search for the "ideal mesh." The use of preclinical or animal models for assessment of necessary characteristics of new and existing meshes is an indispensable part of hernia research. Unfortunately, in our experience there is a lack of consensus among different research groups on which model to use. Therefore, we hypothesized that there is a lack of comparability within published animal research on hernia surgery due to wide range in experimental setup among different research groups.MethodsA systematic search of the literature was performed to provide a complete overview of all animal models published between 2000 and 2014. Relevant parameters on model characteristics and outcome measurement were scored on a standardized scoring sheet.ResultsDue to the wide range in different animals used, ranging from large animal models like pigs to rodents, we decided to limit the study to 168 articles concerning rat models. Within these rat models, we found wide range of baseline animal characteristics, operation techniques, and outcome measurements. Making reliable comparison of results among these studies is impossible.ConclusionThere is a lack of comparability among experimental hernia research, limiting the impact of this experimental research. We therefore propose the establishment of guidelines for experimental hernia research by the EHS.
| S-EPMC5608772 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Our objective was to re-analyse the data used in an industry-funded working paper to study the effect of plain packaging on youth smoking prevalence in Australia, allowing for other tobacco control measures introduced over the period 2001-2013, and using a more appropriate method of analysis. METHODS:Monthly smoking prevalence and sample sizes from repeat cross-sectional surveys were reconstructed from the working paper by reverse engineering of the industry-presented data, and analysed as a time series using logistic regression. Power analysis presented in the industry-funded working paper was re-calculated. RESULTS:Smoking prevalence among minors in Australia declined from 11.6% to 5.6% over the 13-year period examined; an overall 52% relative reduction or an average annual reduction of 5.5% (95% confidence interval 4.6% to 6.4%). There was a 12.1% (-4.8% to 26.2%) relative reduction in smoking prevalence when plain packaging was introduced, though the reduction was not statistically significant. Re-calculated power values were much lower than those reported in the industry-funded paper, confirming the inconclusiveness of its findings, as pointed out in previous critiques. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest a decline of smoking prevalence in minors following the introduction of plain packaging in Australia. They differ substantially from those presented in an industry-funded study on the effects of plain packaging on smoking prevalence in minors in Australia, which used the same data.
| S-EPMC7232792 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEnrollment challenges for critical care research are common. Contributing factors include short enrollment windows, the crisis nature of critical illness, lack of research staff, unavailable legal proxy, family dynamics, and language barriers.ObjectiveTo describe enrollment statistics for an ongoing critical care nursing trial, barriers to recruitment, and strategies to enhance enrollment.MethodsTwo years' worth of recruitment and enrollment data from an oral care intervention trial in critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation at 1 hospital were analyzed. Recruitment logs include number of patients screened, eligible, enrolled, and declined and patients' sex, race, and ethnicity.ResultsTarget enrollment (15.5 patients per month) was based on experience and historical data. Strategies implemented to promote enrollment included providing study personnel at least 18 hours per day for 7 days per week, regular rounds, communication with direct care staff, and Spanish consent processes. In 2 years, 6963 patients were screened; 1551 (22%) were eligible. Consent was sought from 366 (24% of eligible patients). Enrollment averaged 13.3 patients per month (86% of projected target). The main factor impeding enrollment was unavailability of a legal proxy to provide consent (88%). The refusal rates of white (11%), black (13%), and Hispanic (16%) patients did not differ significantly. However, those classified as Asian or as more than 1 race declined significantly more often (35%) than did white or black patients (P = .02).ConclusionsUnavailability of a legal proxy within a short enrollment window was the major challenge to enrollment. Various factors influenced consent decisions. Clinical study design requires more conservative estimates.
| S-EPMC6015765 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAnesthesiology plays a crucial role in perioperative care, critical care, and pain management, impacting patient experiences and clinical outcomes. However, our understanding of the anesthesiology research landscape is limited. Accordingly, we initiated a data-driven analysis through topic modeling to uncover research trends, enabling informed decision-making and fostering progress within the field.MethodsThe easyPubMed R package was used to collect 32,300 PubMed abstracts spanning from 2000 to 2022. These abstracts were authored by 737 Anesthesiology Principal Investigators (PIs) who were recipients of National Institute of Health (NIH) funding from 2010 to 2022. Abstracts were preprocessed, vectorized, and analyzed with the state-of-the-art BERTopic algorithm to identify pillar topics and trending subtopics within anesthesiology research. Temporal trends were assessed using the Mann-Kendall test.ResultsThe publishing journals with most abstracts in this dataset were Anesthesia & Analgesia 1133, Anesthesiology 992, and Pain 671. Eight pillar topics were identified and categorized as basic or clinical sciences based on a hierarchical clustering analysis. Amongst the pillar topics, "Cells & Proteomics" had both the highest annual and total number of abstracts. Interestingly, there was an overall upward trend for all topics spanning the years 2000-2022. However, when focusing on the period from 2015 to 2022, topics "Cells & Proteomics" and "Pulmonology" exhibit a downward trajectory. Additionally, various subtopics were identified, with notable increasing trends in "Aneurysms", "Covid 19 Pandemic", and "Artificial intelligence & Machine Learning".ConclusionOur work offers a comprehensive analysis of the anesthesiology research landscape by providing insights into pillar topics, and trending subtopics. These findings contribute to a better understanding of anesthesiology research and can guide future directions.
| S-EPMC11016610 | biostudies-literature