The prevalence of corporate funding in adult lower extremity research and its correlation with reported results☆

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00289-4Get rights and content

Abstract

The author reviewed 603 consecutive articles and scientific presentations pertaining to adult lower extremity orthopedic research from 2 major American orthopedic journals and 2 major American orthopedic meetings. The prevalence of commercial funding in these studies was 50%. Clinical studies of total hip arthroplasty implants by American investigators were commercially sponsored in 75% of studies. Commercially funded hip research reported positive outcomes in 93% of studies, whereas independently funded researchers reported good results in only 37%. Funded clinical studies of total knee arthroplasty implants yielded good results in 75%; this is in contrast to the findings of independently funded investigators, who reported positive conclusions in only 20% of studies. Investigators receiving royalties reported no negative outcomes related to the respective devices. The source of research funding was strongly correlated with reported outcomes.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

The author reviewed all scientific papers, posters, scientific exhibits, and symposia relating to adult hip and knee reconstruction at the 2002 AAOS meeting in Dallas, Texas (February 13–17, 2002). Additionally, all papers and posters from the 2001 American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) meeting in Dallas, Texas (November 9–11, 2001), were reviewed. All journal articles published in 2001 pertaining to adult hip and knee reconstruction from the American and British editions of the

Results

In total, there were 561 LER research presentations and 42 symposia presentations available for review. Among the research presentations, there were 129 relevant oral presentations at the AAOS and AAHKS meetings as well as 194 poster presentations. Additionally, there were 27 LER scientific exhibits presented at the AAOS meeting. A total of 94 LER articles published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British and American volumes for 2001) were reviewed, along with 117 LER articles from

Discussion

The current study has several limitations. First, there are no universally accepted methods of performing the type of analysis that was done in this study. By necessity, some of the evaluation required subjective analysis by the author. Second, it was not possible to review studies that were rejected for presentation or publication. Bias by the editors deciding which reports are accepted would influence the body of literature available for review. The current study cannot address whether funded

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Darryl D. D’Lima, MD, for assistance with statistical analysis of the data.

References (16)

  • K.S. Knox et al.

    Reporting and dissemination of industry versus non-profit sponsored economic analyses of six novel drugs used in oncology

    Ann Oncol

    (2000)
  • B. Djulbegovic et al.

    The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research

    Lancet

    (2000)
  • O.P. Hole et al.

    Clinical researchthe influence of the pharmaceutical industry

    Eur J Clin Pharmacol

    (2001)
  • J. Yaphe et al.

    The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials

    Fam Pract

    (2001)
  • M. Friedberg et al.

    Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology

    JAMA

    (1999)
  • M. Martinic

    The research community and the private sectora hands-on or hands-off relationship?

    Alcohol Clin Exp Res

    (2001)
  • P.J. Dorman et al.

    Reports of randomized trials in acute stroke, 1955 to 1995What proportions were commercially sponsored?

    Stroke

    (1999)
  • C. Turner et al.

    Research into smoking or nicotine and human cognitive performancedoes the source of funding make a difference?

    Addiction

    (1997)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

☆

No benefits or funds were received in support of this study.

View full text
Copyright © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.