Funding (Sponsorship) bias
ThemesFunding (Sponsorship) bias
What is this about?
Why is this important?
The term “funding effect” was formed in the 1980s, when it was discovered that researchers do not always report their results and conclusions honestly, but distort the findings to support the aims of the funding sources.[1] It has also shown that industry sponsored studies are more likely to publish positive results than those sponsored by not-for-profit and independent organisations.[1] One of the reasons is that funders may prevent publishing of the manuscript containing unfavourable results or even take some legal acts against researchers.[2] For example, in one case a sponsor sued a haematologist for breach of contract because she reported “concerns over the safety of a drug she was evaluating”.[3]
This distortion of reporting of the study results and conclusions occurs more often in studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry.[1] This can cause serious consequences because it directly affects the practice of medicine.[4] Nevertheless, every researcher with a funded study could be pressured to report results and conclusions that are more favourable to the funders, regardless of the topic or research area of the study.For whom is this important?
What are the best practices?
To prevent funding bias, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requires that research articles have Disclosure Form containing:
“-sources of support for the work, including sponsor names along with explanations of the role of those sources if any in study design;
-collecting, analysis, and interpretation of data;
-writing of the report;
-any restrictions regarding submission of the report for publication;
-or a statement declaring that the supporting source had no such involvement or restrictions regarding publication.”[1]
In addition to that, editors may request that authors also sign a statement, such as: “I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis”.[1]
Some investigators have even proposed that academic studies funded by industry should continue only if academic medical centres would be solely responsible for the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials. Others have recommended that conflict-of-interest committees should be created at academic institutions to monitor the finances.[5]Andrijana Perković Paloš, Ivan Konstantinovic contributed to this theme. Latest contribution was Feb 09, 2023
Other information
Virtues & Values
Good Practices & Misconduct
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Krimsky S. Do Financial Conflicts of Interest Bias Research? An Inquiry into the “Funding Effect” Hypothesis. ST&HV. 2012; 38(4):566-587. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name ":0" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Rodrigues V. Publication and reporting biases and how they impact publication of research. editage insights. 2013 Oct 29. [cited 2021 Sept 27]. Available from: https://www.editage.com/insights/publication-and-reporting-biases-and-how-they-impact-publication-of-research.
- ↑ Chopra SS. Industry Funding of Clinica Trials: Benefit or Bias? JAMA. 2003;290(1):113-114.
- ↑ Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326(7400):1167-1170.
- ↑ Chopra SS. Industry Funding of Clinica Trials: Benefit or Bias? JAMA. 2003;290(1):113-114.
