A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures
Kesselheim and colleagues tested whether a trial's funding source shapes physicians' judgement of its quality, separately from the design of the study. Board-certified internists read abstracts of hypothetical drug trials that varied in rigour and in how funding was disclosed. Physicians judged well-designed trials more credible and discounted weaker ones. Disclosure of pharmaceutical funding lowered their ratings of rigour, their confidence in the results and their willingness to prescribe, even when the design was identical, and trials funded by the NIH received the most credibility. The authors suggest this could slow the translation of sound industry-funded research into practice.
Kesselheim and colleagues tested whether a trial's funding source shapes physicians' judgement of its quality, separately from the design of the study. Board-certified internists read abstracts of hypothetical drug trials that varied in rigour and in how funding was disclosed. Physicians judged well-designed trials more credible and discounted weaker ones. Disclosure of pharmaceutical funding lowered their ratings of rigour, their confidence in the results and their willingness to prescribe, even when the design was identical, and trials funded by the NIH received the most credibility. The authors suggest this could slow the translation of sound industry-funded research into practice.
Written from the abstract, PubMed Central record.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Kesselheim, A. S., Robertson, C. T., Myers, J. A., Rose, S. L., Gillet, V., Ross, K. M., Glynn, R. J., Joffe, S., & Avorn, J. (2012). A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures. New England Journal of Medicine, 367(12), 1119-1127. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1202397