BMC Medical Research Methodology | |
Industry sponsorship and publication bias among animal studies evaluating the effects of statins on atherosclerosis and bone outcomes: a meta-analysis | |
Lisa Bero2  David Krauth1  Andrew T Anglemyer1  | |
[1] Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California San Francisco, 50 Beale Street, San Francisco 94143, CA, USA;Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia | |
关键词: Animal experimentation; Meta-analysis; Bias; Drug industry; Publication bias; | |
Others : 1135486 DOI : 10.1186/s12874-015-0008-z |
|
received in 2014-10-24, accepted in 2015-02-19, 发布年份 2015 | |
【 摘 要 】
Background
The effect that sponsorship has on publication rates or overall effect estimates in animal studies is unclear, though methodological biases are prevalent in animal studies of statins and there may be differences in efficacy estimates between industry and non-industry sponsored studies. In the present analysis, we evaluated the impact of funding source on publication bias in animal studies estimating the effect of statins on atherosclerosis and bone outcomes.
Methods
We conducted two independent systematic reviews and meta-analyses identifying animal studies evaluating the effect of statins on reducing the risk of atherosclerosis outcomes (n = 49) and increasing the likelihood of beneficial bone outcomes (n = 45). After stratifying the included studies within each systematic review by funding source, three separate analyses were employed to assess publication bias in these meta-analyses—funnel plots, Egger’s Linear Regression, and the Trim and Fill methods.
Results
We found potential evidence of publication bias, primarily in non-industry sponsored studies. In all 3 assessments of publication bias, we found evidence of publication bias in non-industry sponsored studies, while in industry-sponsored studies publication bias was not evident in funnel plots and Egger’s regression tests. We also found that inadequate reporting of sponsorship in animal studies is still exceedingly common.
Conclusions
In meta-analyses assessing the effects of statins on atherosclerosis and bone outcomes in animal studies, we found evidence of publication bias, though small numbers of industry-sponsored studies limit the interpretation of the trim-and-fill results. This publication bias is more prominent in non-industry sponsored studies. Industry and non-industry funded researchers may have different incentives for publication. Industry may have a financial interest to publish all preclinical animal studies to maximize the success of subsequent trials in humans, whereas non-industry funded academics may prefer to publish high impact statistically significant results only. Differences in previously published effect estimates between industry- and non-industry sponsored animal studies may be partially explained by publication bias.
【 授权许可】
2015 Anglemyer et al.; licensee BioMed Central.
【 预 览 】
Files | Size | Format | View |
---|---|---|---|
20150310022401842.pdf | 1031KB | download | |
Figure 3. | 62KB | Image | download |
Figure 2. | 72KB | Image | download |
Figure 1. | 66KB | Image | download |
【 图 表 】
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
【 参考文献 】
- [1]Van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Porritt MJ, Rewell S, O’Collins V, et al.: Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med 2010, 7(3):e1000245.
- [2]Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P, et al.: Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ 2007, 334(7586):197.
- [3]Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I: Group RATS (RATS): Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ 2004, 328(7438):514.
- [4]O’Collins VE, Macleod MR, Donnan GA, Horky LL, Van der Worp BH, Howells DW: 1,026 experimental treatments in acute stroke. Ann Neurol 2006, 59(3):467-77.
- [5]Tsilidis KK, Panagiotou OA, Sena ES, Aretouli E, Evangelou E, Howells DW, et al.: Evaluation of excess significance bias in animal studies of neurological diseases. PLoS Biol 2013, 11(7):e1001609.
- [6]Chan A-W, Altman DG: Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 2005, 330(7494):753.
- [7]Chan A-W, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG: Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004, 291(20):2457-65.
- [8]Dickersin K, Chan SS, Chalmersx TC, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr: Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1987, 8(4):343-53.
- [9]Dickersin K, Min Y-I, Meinert CL: Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 1992, 267(3):374-8.
- [10]Lee KP, Boyd EA, Holroyd-Leduc JM, Bacchetti P, Bero LA: Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. Med J Aust 2006, 184(12):621-6.
- [11]Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L: Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the food and drug administration: review of publication and presenation. PLoS Med 2008, 5(11):1561-70.
- [12]Vedula SS, Bero L, Scherer RW, Dickersin K: Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored trials of gabapentin for off-label use. N Engl J Med 2009, 361(20):1963-71.
- [13]Soeken KL, Sripusanapan A: Assessing publication bias in meta-analysis. Nurs Res 2003, 52(1):57-60.
- [14]CAMARADES. Available from: http://www.CAMARADES.info.
- [15]Korevaar D, Hooft L, Ter Riet G: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Lab Anim 2011, 45(4):225-30.
- [16]ter Riet G, Korevaar D, Leenaars M, Sterk P, van Noorden C, Bouter L, et al.: Publication bias in laboratory animal research: a survey on magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions. PLoS One 2012, 7(9):e43404.
- [17]Timmer A, Hilsden RJ, Cole J, Hailey D, Sutherland LR: Publication bias in gastroenterological research–a retrospective cohort study based on abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002, 2(1):7. BioMed Central Full Text
- [18]Sena ES, Van der Worp HB, Bath PM, Howells DW, Macleod MR: Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol 2010, 8(3):e1000344.
- [19]Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, and Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012,12: doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2
- [20]Krauth D, Woodruff TJ, Bero L: Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect 2013, 121(9):985.
- [21]Krauth D, Anglemyer A, Phillips R, Bero L. Nonindustry-Sponsored Preclinical Studies on Statins Yield Greater Efficacy Estimates Than Industry-Sponsored Studies: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(1).
- [22]DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1996, 7:177-88.
- [23]Abdel-Sattar M, Krauth D, Anglemyer A, Bero L. The Relationship Between Risk of Bias Criteria, Research Outcomes, and Study Sponsorship in a Cohort of Preclinical Thiazolidinedione Animal Studies: A Meta-Analysis. Evidence-Based Preclin Med. 2015. In Press.
- [24]Macleod MR, O’Collins T, Horky LL, Howells DW, Donnan GA: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of melatonin in experimental stroke. J Pineal Res 2005, 38(1):35-41.
- [25]Macleod M: Some salt with your statin, professor? PLoS Biol 2014, 12(1):e1001768.
- [26]Fanelli D, Ioannidis JP: US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2013, 110(37):15031-6.
- [27]Lynch JR, Cunningham MR, Warme WJ, Schaad DC, Wolf FM, Leopold SS: Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. J Bone Joint Surg 2007, 89(5):1010-8.
- [28]Link A: US and Non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 1998, 280(3):246-7.
- [29]Munafo M, Attwood A, Flint J: Bias in genetic association studies: effects of research location and resources. Psychol Med 2008, 38:1213-4.
- [30]Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG: Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. Osteoarthr Carti 2012, 20(4):256-60.
- [31]Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, Austin C, Blumenstein R, Bradley E, et al.: A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 2012, 490(7419):187-91.
- [32]De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al.: Clinical trial registration: a statement from the international committee of medical journal editors. N Engl J Med 2004, 351(12):1250-1.
- [33]Kimmelman J, Anderson JA: Should preclinical studies be registered? Nature Biotechnol 2012, 30(6):488-9.
- [34]Higgins Julian PT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 5.1.0 ed. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org.