Funding clinical research

Surface EMG in Clinical Assessment and Neurorehabilitation: Barriers Limiting Its Use

This article addresses the potential clinical value of techniques based on surface electromyography (sEMG) in rehabilitation medicine with specific focus on neurorehabilitation. Applications in exercise and sport pathophysiology, in movement analysis, in ergonomics and occupational medicine, and in a number of related fields are also considered. The contrast between the extensive scientific literature in these fields and the limited clinical applications is discussed. The "barriers" between research findings and their application are very broad, and are longstanding, cultural, educational, and technical. Cultural barriers relate to the general acceptance and use of the concept of objective measurement in a clinical setting and its role in promoting Evidence Based Medicine. Wide differences between countries exist in appropriate training in the use of such quantitative measurements in general, and in electrical measurements in particular. These differences are manifest in training programs, in degrees granted, and in academic/research career opportunities. Educational barriers are related to the background in mathematics and physics for rehabilitation clinicians, leading to insufficient basic concepts of signal interpretation, as well as to the lack of a common language with rehabilitation engineers. Technical barriers are being overcome progressively, but progress is still impacted by the lack of user-friendly equipment, insufficient market demand, gadget-like devices, relatively high equipment price and a pervasive lack of interest by manufacturers. Despite the recommendations provided by the 20-year old EU project on "Surface EMG for Non-Invasive Assessment of Muscles (SENIAM)," real international standards are still missing and there is minimal international pressure for developing and applying such standards. The need for change in training and teaching is increasingly felt in the academic world, but is much less perceived in the health delivery system and clinical environments. The rapid technological progress in the fields of sensor and measurement technology (including sEMG), assistive devices, and robotic rehabilitation, has not been driven by clinical demands. Our assertion is that the most important and urgent interventions concern enhanced education, more effective technology transfer, and increased academic opportunities for physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and kinesiologists.

The effect of study sponsorship on a systematically evaluated body of evidence of head-to-head trials was modest: secondary analysis of a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of industry bias in a systematically reviewed body of evidence of head-to-head trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We limited our analysis to published head-to-head randomized controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) identified in a comparative effectiveness review. Two reviewers independently determined the status of funding for each trial. We classified drugs into one of two groups: (1) drugs associated with the funding source and (2) drugs not associated with the funding source. To determine the effect of any underlying industry bias, we conducted relative-benefit meta-analyses comparing the response rates of drugs when associated with the funding source with response rates of the same drugs when not associated with the funding source.

RESULTS

Thirteen out of 20 studies (65%) numerically favored drugs associated with the funding source over drugs used as controls. The pooled response rates of SSRIs, when associated with the funding source, are significantly greater than those of the same SSRIs when not associated with the sponsor (relative benefit=1.07; 95% confidence interval=1.02-1.11). The difference, however, is likely to be not of clinical importance.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of industry bias in comparative effectiveness reviews might play a lesser role than in systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials.

Frequency, nature, effects, and correlates of conflicts of interest in published clinical cancer research

BACKGROUND

Relationships between clinical researchers and industry are becoming increasingly complex. The frequency and impact of conflicts of interest in the full range of high-impact, published clinical cancer research is unknown.

METHODS

The authors reviewed cancer research published in 8 journals in 2006 to determine frequency of self-reported conflicts of interest, source of study funding, and other characteristics. They assessed associations between the likelihood of conflicts of interest and other characteristics by using chi-squared testing. They also compared the likelihood of positive outcome in randomized trials with and without conflicts of interest by chi-squared testing.

RESULTS

The authors identified 1534 original oncology studies; 29% had conflicts of interest (including industrial funding) and 17% declared industrial funding. Conflicts of interest varied by discipline (P < .001), continental origin (P < .001), and sex (P < .001) of the corresponding author and were most likely in articles with corresponding authors from departments of medical oncology (45%), those from North America (33%), and those with male first and senior authors (37%). Frequency of conflicts also varied considerably depending upon disease site studied. Studies with industrial funding were more likely to focus on treatment (62% vs 36%; P < .001), and randomized trials that assessed survival were more likely to report positive survival outcomes when a conflict of interest was present (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Conflicts of interest characterize a substantial minority of clinical cancer research published in high-impact journals. Therefore, attempts to disentangle the cancer research effort from industry merit further attention, and journals should embrace both rigorous standards of disclosure and heightened scrutiny when conflicts exist.

The future of physical & rehabilitation medicine as a medical specialty in the era of evidence-based medicine

Ebenbichler G, Kerschan-Schindl K, Brockow T, Resch KL: The future of physical & rehabilitation medicine as a medical specialty in the era of evidence-based medicine.

Association of industry sponsorship to published outcomes in gastrointestinal clinical research

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Recent years have seen an increase in industry sponsorship of clinical trials throughout medicine. We conducted a study to evaluate the association of industry sponsorship to published outcomes in gastrointestinal (GI) clinical research. Our aims were (1) to evaluate the trends in the source of funding for GI clinical research during the period from 1992 to 2002-2003, (2) to determine whether the source of study funding predicted the likelihood that a study would publish results that favor the drug or device being tested, and (3) to determine whether differences exist in the methodologic quality of the investigational study methods used in studies funded by private industry versus other sources.

METHODS

We selected all clinical studies evaluating a drug or device from 4 prominent GI journals (Gastroenterology, The American Journal of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy). All studies were abstracted by using a standardized data abstraction form. We evaluated the trends in funding source for studies published during the years 1992, 2002, and 2003. All selected studies were scored for methodologic quality by using a previously validated scoring system. The percentage of studies that reported outcomes that favored the device or drug being tested against the standard therapy or placebo was determined for each funding source. A funnel plot was constructed to assess for the presence of negative publication bias.

RESULTS

A total of 6326 studies were reviewed. For the 1992 trend data, 1860 studies were reviewed, and 135 were selected for inclusion in the study. Ninety-five studies were studies involving the investigation of drugs, and 40 studies involved the testing of a device. For the 2002-2003 data 4466 studies were reviewed, and 315 were selected for inclusion in the study. Two hundred twenty-two studies were clinical trials involving the investigation of drugs, and 93 were clinical trials involving devices. In comparing 1992 to 2002, the percentage of studies funded by industry sources more than doubled from 10% to greater than 28% of the total studies assessed. There was an associated decline in the proportion of studies with funding from non-industry sources during this period (62% to less than 48%). The percentage of studies that did not disclose a funding source fell modestly from 28% to 24%. We found that 86% of studies funded by private industry reported a result favorable to the study drug or device, and 83% of studies funded by academic sources reported a result favorable to the study drug or device (P=.572). On average, studies funded by private industry had a higher methodology score than studies funded by traditional academic sources (75 of 100 vs 65 of 100; P=.005). Analysis of the funnel plot did not reveal evidence of bias against the publication of small studies with insignificant results.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of research funded by industry has more than doubled during the last decade and currently comprises almost half of the funding for GI clinical research. Industry-sponsored studies are, on average, of superior methodologic quality to studies funded by other sources. Industry-sponsored studies in leading GI journals were no more likely than other studies to publish results that favored the study sponsor, although an extremely high percentage of all studies in these journals reported positive results. There has been only a modest decline in studies not acknowledging a funding source.

An analysis of the effect of funding source in randomized clinical trials of second generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

The effect of funding source on the outcome of randomized controlled trials has been investigated in several medical disciplines; however, psychiatry has been largely excluded from such analyses. In this article, randomized controlled trials of second generation antipsychotics in schizophrenia are reviewed and analyzed with respect to funding source (industry vs. non-industry funding).

METHOD

A literature search was conducted for randomized, double-blind trials in which at least one of the tested treatments was a second generation antipsychotic. In each study, design quality and study outcome were assessed quantitatively according to rating scales. Mean quality and outcome scores were compared in the industry-funded studies and non-industry-funded studies. An analysis of the primary author's affiliation with industry was similarly performed.

RESULTS

Results of industry-funded studies significantly favored second generation over first generation antipsychotics when compared to non-industry-funded studies. Non-industry-funded studies showed a trend toward higher quality than industry-funded studies; however, the difference between the two was not significant. Also, within the industry-funded studies, outcomes of trials involving first authors employed by industry sponsors demonstrated a trend toward second generation over first generation antipsychotics to a greater degree than did trials involving first authors employed outside the industry (p=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

While the retrospective design of the study limits the strength of the findings, the data suggest that industry bias may occur in randomized controlled trials in schizophrenia. There appears to be several sources by which bias may enter clinical research, including trial design, control of data analysis and multiplicity/redundancy of trials.

Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support.

METHODS

Medline (January 1966 to December 2002) and Embase (January 1980 to December 2002) searches were supplemented with material identified in the references and in the authors' personal files. Data were independently abstracted by three of the authors and disagreements were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

30 studies were included. Research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published than research funded by other sources. Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors (odds ratio 4.05; 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.51; 18 comparisons). None of the 13 studies that analysed methods reported that studies funded by industry was of poorer quality.

CONCLUSION

Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.

How useful are unpublished data from the Food and Drug Administration in meta-analysis?

The goals of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to ascertain whether studies of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) summarized in the FDA reviews are ultimately published, to compare the methodologic and population characteristics of studies summarized in the FDA reviews with those reported in peer reviewed literature, and to compare the pooled relative risk of dyspepsia from NSAIDs in each data source. Summary measures of risk difference were calculated with a random effects model; meta-regression was used to assess the effect of study covariates. Among 37 studies described in the FDA reviews, one was published. Sample size, gender distribution, indication for drug use, and methodologic quality did not vary significantly between the published and FDA data. The pooled risk ratio for dyspepsia obtained using published data (1.21) or FDA data (1.07) did not differ significantly or practically. Data from FDA reviews may be a viable data source for systematic reviews and meta-analyses but only after being subjected to the same methodologic scrutiny as published data.

Ethical considerations in the relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry

Persuasion, influence, and change are familiar domains in psychiatry. Frequently, therapists attempt to identify and understand the cognitions, affects, and perceptions their patients have developed or acquired and then, by a number of means, trigger therapeutic changes. Whereas they spend much work in the therapeutic setting attempting to delineate the mechanisms that produce such transformations and to influence change, physicians are often in a similar relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. However, in this relationship, they are the recipients of persuasion and influence.

Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between competing interests and authors' conclusions in randomised clinical trials.

DESIGN

Epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ from January 1997 to June 2001. Financial competing interests were defined as funding by for profit organisations and other competing interests as personal, academic, or political.

STUDIES

159 trials from 12 medical specialties.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Authors' conclusions defined as interpretation of extent to which overall results favoured experimental intervention. Conclusions appraised on 6 point scale; higher scores favour experimental intervention.

RESULTS

Authors' conclusions were significantly more positive towards the experimental intervention in trials funded by for profit organisations alone compared with trials without competing interests (mean difference 0.48 (SE 0.13), P=0.014), trials funded by both for profit and non-profit organisations (0.30 (SE 0.10), P=0.003), and trials with other competing interests (0.45 (SE 0.13), P=0.006). Other competing interests and funding from both for profit and non-profit organisations were not significantly associated with authors' conclusions. The association between financial competing interests and authors' conclusions was not explained by methodological quality, statistical power, type of experimental intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological), type of control intervention (for example, placebo or active drug), or medical specialty.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors' conclusions in randomised clinical trials significantly favoured experimental interventions if financial competing interests were declared. Other competing interests were not significantly associated with authors' conclusions.

Article Commentary: Independent Clinical Trials: A Commentary

The so-called norms of good clinical practice have been incorporated into the Italian regulatory legislation governing clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, but there are no legislative provisions governing independent clinical trials: ie those not sponsored by the industry. The pharmaceutical industry has recently increased considerably its commitment to sponsored trials by establishing a series of economic relationships with individual researchers and hospital or university institutions. It has also set up and strengthened a series of bodies and service companies with the aim of making the clinical trials “machine” more efficient. Such developments have aroused alarm in the medical literature because of the risk that they may have negative effects on the freedom of research and research results. At the same time, there is also the risk that independent clinical trials will be greatly penalized by having to compete with sponsored trials in terms of patient enrollment, and because they are currently having to face a series of difficulties connected with the lack or scarcity of economic resources provided by the State or non-profit organizations, with problems relating to patient insurance and to the availability of the necessary drugs. However, the objective of independent trials is to improve the medical art by answering specific diagnostic and therapeutic questions, whereas that of industry-sponsored trials is to generate money, directly or indirectly, by means of the registration of new drugs. It is therefore now necessary to ensure better surveillance of the influence of pharmaceutical companies over the trials they sponsor (as a minimum by ensuring the transparency of a series of potential conflicts of interest between them and clinical researchers) and, simultaneously, protect independent trials from coming to an inglorious end by means of specific support initiatives such as those proposed in this article.

Fasting followed by vegetarian diet in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

Clinical experience suggests that fasting followed by vegetarian diet may help patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We reviewed the available scientific evidence, because patients frequently ask for dietary advice, and exclusive pharmacological treatment of RA is often not satisfying. Fasting studies in RA were searched in MEDLINE and by checking references in relevant reports. The results of the controlled studies which reported follow-up data for at least three months after fasting were quantitatively pooled. Thirty-one reports of fasting studies in patients with RA were found. Only four controlled studies investigated the effects of fasting and subsequent diets for at least three months. The pooling of these studies showed a statistically and clinically significant beneficial long-term effect. Thus, available evidence suggests that fasting followed by vegetarian diets might be useful in the treatment of RA. More randomised long-term studies are needed to confirm this view by methodologically convincing data.

[Declaring conflict of interest in scientific publications. Time for the spotlights and stenographers in the backroom of research financed by the industry?]

The term conflict of interests is applied to those situations in which the research validity and integrity may be influenced by a secondary interest, typically an economic benefit, but also an ideological, personal or professional interest. In this work we describe some ways of conflict of interests--particularly those related with the publication of clinical and epidemiological research supported by the industry--and the regulation of this problem from medical journals, including references to the situation in Spain. The conflict of interest is not synonymous of scientific fraud neither malpraxis in research, but in the medical literature there exists enough evidence to consider it as an important source of biases. The usual form of facing the conflict of interests is to make it public, so that readers can judge its importance. The editorial policies of the Spanish journals are, in general, far from giving importance to this problem, an aspect which could favor an attitude of the investigators, to maintain funding or to obtain new contracts, unnecessarily subordinated to the interests of the companies.

The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research

BACKGROUND

Reporting of pharmaceutical-industry-sponsored randomised clinical trials often result in biased findings, either due to selective reporting of studies with non-equivalent arms or publication of low-quality papers, wherein unfavourable results are incompletely described. A randomised trial should be conducted only if there is substantial uncertainty about the relative value of one treatment versus another. Studies in which intervention and control are thought to be non-equivalent violates the uncertainty principle.

METHODS

We examined the quality of 136 published randomised trials that focused on one disease category (multiple myeloma) and adherence to the uncertainty principle. To evaluate whether the uncertainty principle was upheld, we compared the number of studies favouring experimental treatments over standard ones. We analysed data according to the source of funding.

FINDINGS

Trials funded solely or in part by 35 profit-making organisations had a trend toward higher quality scores (mean 2.94 [SD 1.3]; median 3) than randomised trials supported by 95 governmental or other non-profit organisations (2.4 [0.8]; 2; p=0.06). Overall, the uncertainty principle was upheld, with 44% of randomised trials favouring standard treatments and 56% innovative treatments (p=0.17); mean and median preference evaluation scores were 3.7 (1.0) and 4. However, when the analysis was done according to the source of funding, studies funded by non-profit organisations maintained equipoise favouring new therapies over standard ones (47% vs 53%; p=0.608) to a greater extent than randomised trials supported solely or in part by profit-making organisations (74% vs 26%; p=0.004).

INTERPRETATION

The reported bias in research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry may be a consequence of violations of the uncertainty principle. Sponsors of clinical trials should be encouraged to report all results and to choose appropriate comparative controls.