Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This pilot investigation evaluated perceptions of conflict of interest for industry and academic investigators. Questionnaires were sent to medical journal editors to assess presumed conflict of interest on their evaluation of manuscripts, to clinical investigators to assess their perceptions of potential gains of publication, and to investigators who do contract research for companies to assess their beliefs about companies' interest in results and publication. Editors, on average, do not perceive that publication decisions are influenced by the financial interest of authors. Academic investigators on average perceive a greater benefit compared with industry investigators for funding (6.4 ± 0.5 vs. 1.7 ± 0.8) and resourcing (5.5 ±0.6 vs. 2.7 ± 0.9). Contract investigators generally believe that companies are neutral regarding contracting future studies based upon results or publication of studies unfavorable to products. Caution should be applied in drawing conclusions related to disclosures of potential financial conflicts of interest.

Keywords

Conflict of interest Clinical research Perceptions Industry Academia

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Dickersin

Chan

Chalmers

Sucks

Smith

. Publication bias in randomized control trials. Control Clin Trials. 1987;8:343–353.

Hetherington

Dickersin

Chalmers

Meinert

. Retrospective and prospective identification of unpublished controlled trials: Lessons from a survey of obstetricians and pediatricians. Pediatrics. 1989;84:374–380.

Easterbrook

Berline

Gopalan

Matthew

. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337:867–872.

Dickersin

. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurence. JAMA. 1990; 263:1385–1389.

Kassirer

Angell

. Financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. New Engl J Med. 1993;329:570–571.

Woolf

. Pressure to publish and fraud in science. Ann Int Med. 1986;104:254–256.

Racker

. A view of misconduct in science. Nature. 1989;339:91–93.

Altman

Melcher

. Fraud in science. Brit Med J. 1983;286:2003–2006.

Mindel

. Failure of controlled clinical trial data to reach the literature. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1992;52:4–5.

10.

Goldstein

Rampey

. Industrial publication of controlled clinical trial data. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1993;53:496.

11.

Rothman

. Conflict of Interest: The new McCarthyism in Science. JAMA. 1993;269:2782–2784.

12.

Edwards

Gabel

Hosmer

. On the physical death of Jesus Christ. JAMA. 1986;255: 1455–1463.

13.

Ben-Tor

. On the physical death of Jesus Christ. JAMA. 1986;255:2758–2759.

14.

Vincent

. Black/white IQ differences. Does age make the difference?. J Clin Psychol. 1991; 47:266–270.

15.

Grant

Ward

. Gender and publishing in sociology. Gender Society. 1991;5:207–223.

16.

Levy

. Publication bias: its implications for clinical pharmacology. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1992;52:115–119.

17.

Wilmshurst

. Publication Bias. Lancet. 1991; 337:1419.

18.

Nobel

. Comparison of research quality guidelines in academic and nonacademic environments. JAMA. 1990;263:1435–1437.

19.

Cowley

Skene

Stainer

Hampton

. The effect of Lorcainide on arrhythmias and survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction: an example of publication bias. Int J Cardiol. 1993;40:161–166.

20.

Chalmers

Frank

Reitman

. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA. 1990;263:1392–1395.

21.

Chalmers

Adams

Dickersin

Hetherington

Tarnow-Mordi

Meinert

Tonascia

Chalmers

. A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. JAMA. 1990;263: 1401–1405.

22.

McNutt

Evans

Fletcher

. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA. 1990;263:1371–1376.

Perceived Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research: Industry and Academia *

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References