Table 1 Summary of 11 studies of the association between industry funding and positive research outcome across different surgical disciplines
Author (reference) | Discipline | Search strategy | Investigated period | Included study type (n) | Positive outcomes industry vs. independent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Leopold [8] | Orthopaedics | 3 journals | 12 months (1999–2000) | All (n = 301) | 79% vs. 64% p = 0.0390 |
Ezzet [6] | Orthopaedics | 3 journals, 2 congresses | 12 months (2001–2002) | All (n = 173) | 86% vs. 24% p < 0.0001 |
Bhandari [5] | Different fields of surgery | 8 journals | 18 months (1999–2001) | RCT (n = 87) | 81% vs. 68% p = 0.4385 |
Shah [13] | Orthopaedics | 1 journal | 19 months (2002–2003) | All (n = 527) | 73% vs. 44% p < 0.0001 |
Lynch [10] | Orthopaedics | 1 journal (submitted manuscripts) | 17 months (2004–2005) | All (n = 208) | 74% vs. 70% p = 0.7070 |
Okike [12] | Orthopaedics | 2 congresses | 2001 + 2002 | All (n = 494) | 98% vs. 88% p = 0.0258 |
Lubowitz [9] | Orthopaedics | MEDLINE | Open–2005 | CCT/RCT (n = 23) | 100% vs. 86% p = 0.6637 |
Yao [15] | ORL | 4 journals | 60 months (2000–2005) | RCT (n = 202) | 81% vs. 79% p = 0.8538 |
Khan [7] | Orthopaedics | 5 journals | 24 months (2002–2004) | RCT (n = 100) | 85% vs. <45% p < 0.0001 |
Momeni [11] | Plastic surgery | 3 journals | 15 years (1990–2005) | CCT/RCT (n = 63) | 74% vs. 64% p = 0.5900 |
Sun [14] | ORL | MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL | 1960–2010 | RCT (n = 118) | 35% vs. 51% p = 0.2067 |