This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Conflict of Interest  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their systematic review and meta-analysis, Mr Bekelman and colleagues¹ concluded that the industry-sponsored research was more likely to have results favorable to the sponsor, and that it was also associated with restrictions on publication and data sharing.

We have several concerns about their methodology. First, the review was restricted to articles published in English. This may have contributed to a language bias as studies with positive results are more likely to be published in English.^2-4 Second, the authors pooled data from 8 systematic reviews and stated that the homogeneity test showed that the odds ratios (ORs) of numbers of positive studies sponsored by industry in each systematic review were not significantly different. However, the pooled results represented many different types of studies including randomized controlled trials, an economic analysis, and retrospective cohort studies on topics ranging from oncology to nicotine and cognitive performance. It is also . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLES

Effect of Industry Sponsorship on the Results of Biomedical Research—Reply
Justin E. Bekelman, Cary P. Gross, and Yan Li
JAMA. 2003;289(19):2503.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review
Justin E. Bekelman, Yan Li, and Cary P. Gross
JAMA. 2003;289(4):454-465.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT