Search

The Physician Sunshine Act of 2010 aimed to increase public awareness of physician-industry relationships. Our objective was to evaluate whether there is an association between scholarly impact and industry funding among academic interventional radiologists. A database from a prior study with our group was used in which we had investigated H-indices among US interventional radiologists; academic rank, gender, institution, and geographic location were obtained. The Scopus database was queried to determine all physicians' H-index. The CMS Open Payments database was used to determine industry payments from 2015 to 2021 for each interventional radiologist. H-index and professor rank positively and significantly correlated with industrial funding (H-index coefficient = $6,977, P <.001 and professor rank coefficient = $183,902, P =.003). Industry funding was found to be significantly different between all ranks. Among 830 academic interventional radiologists, the mean industrial funding of male physicians was $130,034, which was significantly higher than female physicians' $28,166 (P =.00013). By academic rank, male primary investigators of associate professor and unranked position had higher industrial funding than female primary investigators (Wilcoxon test, P =.029 and P =.039, respectively). Professor and assistant professor ranks had no significant difference in industrial funding between male and female physicians (Wilcoxon's test, P =.080 and P =.053, respectively). Scholarly activity as defined by the H-index and academic rank seem to have a positive association with industry funding of academic interventional radiologists. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background It is well established that the tobacco industry used research funding as a deliberate tactic to subvert science. There has been little wider attention to how researchers think about accepting industry funding. We developed, then tested, hypotheses about two psychological constructs, namely, entitlement and conflict of interest contrarianism (CoI-C) among alcohol researchers who had previously received industry funding. Methods A mixed-methods pilot study involved construct and instrument development, followed by an online survey and nested 3-arm randomised trial. We randomly allocated alcohol industry funding recipients to one of three conditions. In two experimental conditions we asked participants questions to remind them (and thus increase the salience) of their sense of entitlement or CoI-C. We compared these groups with a control group who did not receive any reminder. The outcome was a composite measure of openness to working with the alcohol industry. Results 133 researchers were randomised of whom 79 completed the experiment. The posterior distribution over effect estimates revealed that there was a 94.8% probability that reminding researchers of their CoI-C led them to self-report being more receptive to industry funding, whereas the probability was 68.1% that reminding them of their sense of entitlement did so. Biomedical researchers reported being more open to working with industry than did psychosocial researchers. Conclusion Holding contrarian views on conflict of interest could make researchers more open to working with industry. This study shows how it is possible to study researcher decision-making using quantitative experimental methods.

Background: It is well established that the tobacco industry used research funding as a deliberate tactic to subvert science. There has been little wider attention to how researchers think about accepting industry funding. We developed, then tested, hypotheses about two psychological constructs, namely, entitlement and conflict of interest contrarianism (CoI-C) among alcohol researchers who had previously received industry funding. Methods: A mixed-methods pilot study involved construct and instrument development, followed by an online survey and nested 3-arm randomised trial. We randomly allocated alcohol industry funding recipients to one of three conditions. In two experimental conditions we asked participants questions to remind them (and thus increase the salience) of their sense of entitlement or CoI-C. We compared these groups with a control group who did not receive any reminder. The outcome was a composite measure of openness to working with the alcohol industry. Results: 133 researchers were randomised of whom 79 completed the experiment. The posterior distribution over effect estimates revealed that there was a 94.8% probability that reminding researchers of their CoI-C led them to self-report being more receptive to industry funding, whereas the probability was 68.1% that reminding them of their sense of entitlement did so. Biomedical researchers reported being more open to working with industry than did psychosocial researchers. Conclusion: Holding contrarian views on conflict of interest could make researchers more open to working with industry. This study shows how it is possible to study researcher decision-making using quantitative experimental methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Conflicts of interest inherent in industry funding can bias medical research methods, outcomes, reporting and clinical applications. This study explored the extent of funding provided to American physician researchers studying surgical mesh used to treat uterine prolapse or stress urinary incontinence, and whether that funding was declared by researchers or influenced the ethical integrity of resulting publications in peer reviewed journals. Methods Publications identified via a Pubmed search (2014–2021) of the terms mesh and pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence and with at least one US physician author were reviewed. Using the CMS Open Payments database industry funding received by those MDs in the year before, of and after publication was recorded, as were each study’s declarations of funding and 14 quality measures. Results Fifty-three of the 56 studies reviewed had at least one American MD author who received industry funding in the year of, or one year before or after publication. For 47 articles this funding was not declared. Of 247 physician authors, 60% received > $100 while 13% received $100,000-$1,000,000 of which approximately 60% was undeclared. While 57% of the studies reviewed explicitly concluded that mesh was safe, only 39% of outcomes supported this. Neither the quality indicator of follow-up duration nor overall statements as to mesh safety varied with declaration status. Conclusions Journal editors’ guidelines re declaring conflicts of interest are not being followed. Financial involvement of industry in mesh research is extensive, often undeclared, and may shape the quality of, and conclusions drawn, resulting in overstated benefit and overuse of pelvic mesh in clinical practice.

To evaluate how study characteristics and methodological aspects compare based on presence or absence of industry funding, Hughes et al. conducted a systematic survey of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in three major medical journals. The authors found industry-funded RCTs were more likely to be blinded, post results on a clinical trials registration database (ClinicalTrials.gov), and accrue high citation counts.1 Conversely, industry-funded trials had smaller sample sizes and more frequently used placebo as the comparator, used a surrogate as their primary outcome, and had positive results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The advertisement and adoption of untested orthodontic products is common. This study aimed to provide an update regarding the prevalence of clinical trials in orthodontics evaluating commercially marketed products. Associations between marketed/non-marketed products and study characteristics such as direction of effect, declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship were evaluated. In addition, within the marketed products associations between direction of effect and study characteristics were explored. Material and methods Electronic searching of a single database (Medline via PubMed) was undertaken to identify Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published over a 5-year period (1st January 2017 to 31st December 2021). Descriptive statistics and associations between trial characteristics were explored. Results 196 RCTs were analysed. RCTs were frequently published in Angle Orthodontist (18.4%), American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (14.8%) and European Journal of Orthodontics (13.3%). 65.3% (128/196) of trials assessed marketed products after their introduction. The majority of trials assessed interventions to improve treatment efficiency (33.7%). Growth modification appliances were typically analysed in non-marketed compared to marketed products. An association between the type of product (marketed vs non-marketed) and both the declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship was detected. For individual RCTs assessing marketed products either a positive effect (45.3%) or equivalence between interventions or between intervention and untreated control (47.7%) was evident. In 27% of these trials either no conflict of interest or industry funding was not clearly declared. Within the marketed products, no association between the direction of the effect and conflict of interest or funding was detected. Conclusions The analysis of marketed orthodontic products after their introduction is still common practice. To reduce research waste, collaboration prior to the licensing and marketing of orthodontic products between researchers, industry and manufacturers is recommended.

Background: The advertisement and adoption of untested orthodontic products is common. This study aimed to provide an update regarding the prevalence of clinical trials in orthodontics evaluating commercially marketed products. Associations between marketed/non-marketed products and study characteristics such as direction of effect, declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship were evaluated. In addition, within the marketed products associations between direction of effect and study characteristics were explored. Material and methods: Electronic searching of a single database (Medline via PubMed) was undertaken to identify Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published over a 5-year period (1st January 2017 to 31st December 2021). Descriptive statistics and associations between trial characteristics were explored. Results: 196 RCTs were analysed. RCTs were frequently published in Angle Orthodontist (18.4%), American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (14.8%) and European Journal of Orthodontics (13.3%). 65.3% (128/196) of trials assessed marketed products after their introduction. The majority of trials assessed interventions to improve treatment efficiency (33.7%). Growth modification appliances were typically analysed in non-marketed compared to marketed products. An association between the type of product (marketed vs non-marketed) and both the declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship was detected. For individual RCTs assessing marketed products either a positive effect (45.3%) or equivalence between interventions or between intervention and untreated control (47.7%) was evident. In 27% of these trials either no conflict of interest or industry funding was not clearly declared. Within the marketed products, no association between the direction of the effect and conflict of interest or funding was detected. Conclusions: The analysis of marketed orthodontic products after their introduction is still common practice. To reduce research waste, collaboration prior to the licensing and marketing of orthodontic products between researchers, industry and manufacturers is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Financial relationships between industry and microsurgeons help facilitate innovation but have the potential to bias a surgeon's academic work. To better understand industry–academic relationships, this study investigated the association between industry payments made to microsurgeons and their academic influence.

Purpose: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) represents a highly profitable biological therapy. Platelet-rich plasma is widely used to treat musculoskeletal disorders despite mixed evidence of its efficacy. As evidenced by literature from other domains, industry funding may influence the results of clinical trials. The objective of the current study was to determine the association between industry funding and positive results for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of PRP in musculoskeletal disorders. Methods: A search of four databases was conducted. Included studies were RCTs comparing PRP to any non-PRP comparator in adults (18 years old or over) with musculoskeletal disorders and had full text available in English. Studies were excluded if they were published before 2016 or were non-human trials. A multivariate binomial logistic regression model was created to explore predictors of statistically significant findings. Covariates included the presence of industry funding, sample size, and length of study follow-up. 1440 records were screened with 87 trials included in the final analysis. Results: Of the 87 studies, 61 (70%) reported a statistically significant primary outcome. The presence of industry funding was not predictive of a statistically significant primary outcome [OR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.096–1.36, (n.s.)]. Studies that did not state whether industry funding was present had a higher chance of reporting a statistically significant primary outcome (OR = 3.61, 95% CI 1.1–11.9, p = 0.035). Sample size and length of follow-up were not predictive of a statistically significant primary outcome. Conclusion: The results of the current study conclude that industry funding had no impact on the reporting of positive results for RCTs investigating PRP in musculoskeletal disorders. However, not disclosing sources of funding was associated with a higher likelihood of reporting positive results. The results of trials that fail to disclose funding sources should be interpreted with caution in the PRP literature. Level of evidence: I. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Industry collaboration with arrhythmia and devices research is common. However, this results in conflicts of interest (CoI) for researchers that should be disclosed. This study aimed to examine the quality of CoI disclosures in arrhythmia and devices presentations.Methods: Recorded presentations from the Arrhythmia & Devices section of the ESC Annual Congress 2016-2020 were assessed. The number of words, conflicts, and time displayed was documented for CoI declarations. Meta-data including sponsorship by an industry partner, presenter sex, and institution were obtained.Results: Of 1153 presentations assessed, 999 were suitable for inclusion. CoI statements were missing from 7.2% of presentations, and 58% reported ≥1 conflict. Those with conflicts spent less time-per-word on their disclosures (median 150 ms, interquartile range [IQR] 83-273 ms) compared with those without conflicts (median 250 ms, IQR 125-375 ms). One-in-eight presentations were sponsored (12.8%, n = 128). CoI statements were more likely to be missing in sponsored presentations (14.8%, n = 19) compared with non-sponsored presentations (6.1%, n = 53), P = 0.0003. Sponsored presentations contained a greater median number of CoIs (10, IQR 6-18) compared with non-sponsored sessions (1, IQR 0-5), P < 0.0001. Time-per-word spent on COI disclosures was 50% lower in sponsored sessions (125 ms, IQR 75-231 ms) compared with non-sponsored sessions (250 ms, IQR 125-375 ms), P < 0.0001.Conclusion: The majority of those presenting arrhythmia and devices research have CoIs to declare. Declarations were often missing or displayed for short periods of time. Presenters in sponsored sessions, while being more conflicted, had a lower standard of declaration suggesting a higher risk of potential bias which viewers had insufficient opportunity to assess. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the prevalence, magnitude, and disclosure status of industry funding in editorial boards of surgery journals. Summary of Background Data: Financial COI can bias research. Although authors seeking to publish in peer-reviewed surgery journals are required to provide COI disclosures, editorial board members' COI disclosures are generally not disclosed to readers. Methods: We present a cross-sectional analysis of industry funding to editorial board members of high-impact surgery journals. We reviewed top US-based surgery journals by impact factor to determine the presence of financial COI in members of each journal's editorial board. The prevalence and magnitude of COI was determined using 2018 industry reported payments found in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. Journal websites were also reviewed looking for the presence of editorial board disclosure statements. Results: A total of 1002 names of editorial board members from the top 10 high-impact American surgery journals were identified. Of 688 individual physicians based in the USA, 452 (65.7%) were found to have received industry payments in 2018, totaling $21,916,503 with a median funding amount per physician of $1253 (interquartile range $156-$10,769). Funding levels varied by surgical specialty and journal. Editorial board disclosure information was found in only 3.3% of physicians. Conclusions: Industry funding to editorial board members of high impact surgery journals is prevalent and underreported. Mechanisms of disclosure for COI are needed at the editorial board level to provide readers full transparency. This would acknowledge this COI of editorial board members, and thereby attempt to potentially further reduce the risk of bias in editorial decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New technologies in hip and knee arthroplasty are commonly evaluated using cost-effectiveness analyses and similar economic assessments. There is a wide variation in the methodology of these studies, introducing the potential for bias. The purpose of this study was to evaluate associations between potential financial conflicts of interest (COI) and the outcomes of economic analyses. We hypothesized that authors' COI and industry funding would be associated with conclusions favorable to a new technology. Economic analyses making cost-effectiveness or economic implementation claims on patient-specific instrumentation, robotics, and implants used in hip and knee arthroplasty published from 2010 to 2022 were identified. Papers were evaluated to determine if conclusions were favorable to the new technology being studied. Fisher's exact test was utilized to determine the relationship between the presence of COI and an article's conclusions. Of 43 eligible articles, 76.7% were cost-effectiveness analyses, 23.2% were cost analyses, and 67.4% of articles had conclusions favorable to a technology. Of the 29 articles with favorable conclusions, 26 had an author with a financial COI (89.7%), and 14 had industry funding (48.3%). Of the 33 articles with a financial COI, 26 (78.8%) had favorable conclusions, and of the 16 articles with industry funding, 14 (87.5%) had favorable conclusions. Fisher's exact test revealed a statistically significant association between an article having favorable conclusions and the presence of an author's COI or industry funding (odds ratio, 13.5; 95% CI [confidence interval], 2.3 to 79.9; P =.003). Financial COIs were present in 79.1% of lower extremity arthroplasty economic analyses on technologies and were associated with an article having conclusions favorable to the new technology. Surgeons and decision-makers should be aware of the variability and assumptions in these studies and the potential bias of the conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decades, federal funding for medical research has decreased, while industry funding has increased. The majority of clinical trials are now industry funded. Involvement of industry raises documented concerns of reporting and publication bias, data suppression, and conclusions that may more favorably align with funder motivations rather than study results. However, industry involvement may also lead to scientific innovation, efficiency, and a more rapid timeline to bring new developments to patients. Through a careful review of a manuscript, the reader can understand the nature of industry involvement and interpret the results in this context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Systemic progress in improving trial representation is uncertain, and previous analyses of minority trial participation have been limited to small cohorts with limited exploration of driving factors. Methods: We analyzed detailed trial records from all US clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from March 2000 to March 2020. Minority enrollment was compared to 2010 US Census demographic estimates using Wilcoxon test. We utilized logistic regression and generalized linear regression with a logit link to assess the association of possible drivers (including trials’ funding source, size, phase, and design) with trials’ disclosure of and amount of minority enrollment, respectively. Findings: Among 20,692 US-based trials with reported results (representing ∼4·76 million enrollees), only 43% (8,871/20,692) reported any race/ethnicity data. The majority of enrollees were White (median 79·7%; interquartile range [IQR] 61·9–90·0%), followed by Black (10·0%; IQR 2·5–23·5%), Hispanic/Latino (6·0%; IQR 0·43–15·4%), Asian (1·0%; IQR 0·0–4·1%), and American Indian (0·0%; IQR 0·0–0·2%). Median combined enrollment of minority race/ethnicity groups (Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian, Other/Multi) was below census estimates (27·6%) (p

Is industry-funded scientific research likely to be biased towards finding positive results? Is industry more likely to work on topics with likely positive outcomes? Using publication-level data and focusing on food groups that are typically considered healthy, I evaluate each article's abstract using crowdsourcing tools. I find little evidence to support selection on topics with positive outcomes, but industry is less likely to work on topics classified as unrelated to health. Conditional on a topic, I find that industry-funded research is 3.2% more positive compared to non-industry funded research with grains that receive heavier funding responsible for most of the effect. Industry-funded research is also more likely to receive a mention in certain industry newsletters. Coupled with firm incentives to use science to further their marketing efforts, such increased trade press coverage might play a role in shaping consumers' opinions on what is healthy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Orthopedic surgery and industry work together in order to provide optimal patient care. The Open Payments Database (OPD), established in 2013, reports industry payments to physicians. This study analyzes the first five years of industry-sponsored research funding (ISRF) to orthopedic surgeons and examines research productivity's effect on ISRF. Methods The OPD was queried from 2014 to 2018 for research payments to orthopedic surgeons in the United States. H-indices and publication volume were queried using the Scopus database. The research payments were sub-categorized to surgeons in teaching hospitals, registered clinical trials, preclinical research, and domestic. Results Between 2014 and 2018, a total of $202.74 million in ISRF was made to 1718 orthopedic surgeons. The proportion of research payments associated with a registered clinical trial significantly increased from 9.62% of payments in 2014 to 42.19% of payments in 2018 (p=0.002). Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. ($20.77 million) contributed the largest value of payments to the greatest number of orthopedic surgeons (n=337). The total value of research payments increased by $3855 for every five-unit increase of a surgeon's H-index (p<0.001) and $762 for every five additional publications (p<0.001). Conclusion Orthopedic surgeons affiliated with a teaching hospital or clinical trial receive more ISRF. There may be a relationship between research productivity and ISRF., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: Heather Menzer declare(s) personal fees from Arthrex. Heather Menzer declare(s) personal fees from MiTek. Sailesh Tummala declare(s) Support for education from ImpactOrtho. Sailesh Tummala declare(s) Hospitality payments from Stryker Corp. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Parmar et al.)

Background: There has been substantial interest from the pharmaceutical industry to study and develop new biologic agents. Previous studies outside of the biologics field have demonstrated that industry funding has the potential to impact the design and findings of clinical trials. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of industry funding on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of biologic therapies. Methods: A review of all RCTs involving biologic therapies in top impact factor medical journals from January 2018 to December 2020 was performed. The relationship between industry funding and the presence of statistically significant primary outcomes and the use of active comparators were analyzed. Results: Among the 157 RCTs included, 120 (76%) were industry funded and 37 (24%) declared no industry funding. Industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to report a statistically significant positive primary outcome compared to studies without industry funding (85% vs. 67%, χ2 = 5.867, p = 0.015) and were significantly more likely to utilize placebo or no comparator than non-industry-funded trials (78% vs. 49%, χ2 = 4.430, p = 0.035). Conclusions: Industry-funded trials investigating biologic therapies are more likely to yield statistically significant positive outcomes and use placebo comparators when compared to non-industry-funded biologic therapy trials in high-impact medical journals.

Background: Hand surgeons and the industry share a common goal to improve the care of patients. However, industry support remains controversial, and the current relationship with fellowship programs remains unclear. This study explores the relationship between industry support and research productivity among hand surgeons in the academic setting., Methods: The Open Payments database, created by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as a result of the Sunshine Act, was used to identify supplemental income paid to physicians of hand surgery fellowships in the United States. Both lifetime individual physician and aggregated fellowship Sunshine Act supplemental income (2015-2021) were collected for review. Supplemental income only reflects royalties, consulting fees, or food and does not include direct research funding. H-index was collected through the Scopus website as a proxy for academic productivity., Results: Six hundred and thirty-four faculty physicians (90.8%) from 94 hand surgery fellowships (100%) were included in the study. The mean individual physician lifetime supplemental income was $67,272 (median $341,861), whereas the mean individual physician H-index was 12.5 (median 9.0). There was a significant and weak positive correlation between individual physician H-index and lifetime income (p<0.001). Similarly, there was a significant and moderately positive correlation between the combined fellowship H-index and total lifetime income (p<0.001)., Conclusion: Research productivity of an orthopedic hand fellowship group and individual academic hand surgeon correlate with overall industry support from indirect research funding. Further work is required to better understand the advantages and disadvantages of industry support of academically productive hand surgeons at hand surgery fellowships., Competing Interests: The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section., (Copyright © 2023, Khouri et al.)

Aims: Industry collaboration with arrhythmia and devices research is common. However, this results in conflicts of interest (CoI) for researchers that should be disclosed. This study aimed to examine the quality of CoI disclosures in arrhythmia and devices presentations., Methods: Recorded presentations from the Arrhythmia & Devices section of the ESC Annual Congress 2016-2020 were assessed. The number of words, conflicts, and time displayed was documented for CoI declarations. Meta-data including sponsorship by an industry partner, presenter sex, and institution were obtained., Results: Of 1153 presentations assessed, 999 were suitable for inclusion. CoI statements were missing from 7.2% of presentations, and 58% reported ≥1 conflict. Those with conflicts spent less time-per-word on their disclosures (median 150 ms, interquartile range [IQR] 83-273 ms) compared with those without conflicts (median 250 ms, IQR 125-375 ms). One-in-eight presentations were sponsored (12.8%, n = 128). CoI statements were more likely to be missing in sponsored presentations (14.8%, n = 19) compared with non-sponsored presentations (6.1%, n = 53), P = 0.0003. Sponsored presentations contained a greater median number of CoIs (10, IQR 6-18) compared with non-sponsored sessions (1, IQR 0-5), P < 0.0001. Time-per-word spent on COI disclosures was 50% lower in sponsored sessions (125 ms, IQR 75-231 ms) compared with non-sponsored sessions (250 ms, IQR 125-375 ms), P < 0.0001., Conclusion: The majority of those presenting arrhythmia and devices research have CoIs to declare. Declarations were often missing or displayed for short periods of time. Presenters in sponsored sessions, while being more conflicted, had a lower standard of declaration suggesting a higher risk of potential bias which viewers had insufficient opportunity to assess., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this work., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: There has been substantial interest from the pharmaceutical industry to study and develop new biologic agents. Previous studies outside of the biologics field have demonstrated that industry funding has the potential to impact the design and findings of clinical trials. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of industry funding on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of biologic therapies. Methods: A review of all RCTs involving biologic therapies in top impact factor medical journals from January 2018 to December 2020 was performed. The relationship between industry funding and the presence of statistically significant primary outcomes and the use of active comparators were analyzed. Results: Among the 157 RCTs included, 120 (76%) were industry funded and 37 (24%) declared no industry funding. Industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to report a statistically significant positive primary outcome compared to studies without industry funding (85% vs. 67%, χ 2 = 5.867, p = 0.015) and were significantly more likely to utilize placebo or no comparator than non-industry-funded trials (78% vs. 49%, χ 2 = 4.430, p = 0.035). Conclusions: Industry-funded trials investigating biologic therapies are more likely to yield statistically significant positive outcomes and use placebo comparators when compared to non-industry-funded biologic therapy trials in high-impact medical journals.