Industry-funded versus non-profit-funded critical care research: a meta-epidemiological overview.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: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. METHODS: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 information was unavailable in the meta-analysis. We then qualitatively summarized the sources of funding. For binary outcomes, separate summary odds ratios were calculated for trials with and without industry funding. We then calculated the ratio of odds ratios (RORs) and the summary ROR (sROR) across topics. ROR?
SUBMITTER: Janiaud P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6182357 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
ACCESS DATA