Search

Introduction Promoting emergency medicine (EM) clinical trials research remains a priority. To characterize the status of clinical EM research, this study assessed trial quality, funding source, and publication of EM clinical trials and compared EM and non-EM trials on these key metrics. We also examined the volume of EM trials and their subspecialty areas. Methods We abstracted data from ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2000 - September 2013) and used individual study National Clinical Trial numbers to identify published trials (January 2007 - September 2016). We used descriptive statistics and chi-square tests to examine study characteristics by EM and non-EM status, and Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests to compare time to publication of completed EM and non-EM studies. Results We found 638 interventional EM trials and 59,512 non-EM interventional trials conducted in the United States between February 2000 and September 2013, registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. EM studies were significantly less likely than non-EM studies to be National Institutes of Health-funded or to evaluate a drug or biologic. However, EM studies had significantly larger sample sizes, and were significantly more likely to use randomization and blinding. Overall, 34.3% of EM and 26.0% of non-EM studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. By subspecialty, more EM trials concerned medical/surgical and psychiatric/neurological conditions than trauma. Conclusion Although EM studies were less likely to have received federal or industry funding, and the EM portfolio consisted of only 638 trials over the 14-year study period, the quality of EM trials surpassed that of non-EM trials, based on indices such as randomization and blinding. This novel finding bodes well for the future of clinical EM research, as does the higher proportion of published EM than non-EM trials. Our study also revealed that trauma studies were under-represented among EM studies. Periodic assessment of EM trials with the metrics used here could provide an informative and valuable longitudinal view of progress in clinical EM research.

WOS: 000446993500007 PubMed ID: 30017220 Background: There are numerous studies discussing thromboprophylaxis after total joint arthroplasty (TJA), with varying conclusions. Patient inclusion criteria may be different for each study, which may lead to selection bias and misrepresentation of data. This study aimed to investigate if industry funding impacted patient demographics and overall reported outcomes of studies analyzing venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention after TJA. Methods: Electronic searches were completed using Ovid, PubMed, and Embase databases. Studies were included if (1) they are published in the English language between 2000 and 2016; (2) they included patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA); and (3) they evaluated prevention and control of postoperative VTE with at least one of the following thromboprophylactic agents: aspirin, enoxaparin, dalteparin, dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, ximelagatran, fondaparinux, or coumadin. Data were extracted and analyzed via mixed-effect logistic regression. Results: Fifty-seven studies were included; 29 were industry funded, and 28, nonfunded. There were no significant differences between patient's age, body mass index, or revision exclusions between funded and nonfunded studies. Funded studies reported less pulmonary embolisms, fewer events of major bleeding, and significantly less 90-day mortality compared with nonfunded studies. Conclusion: Industry-funded studies reported less pulmonary embolisms, major bleeding, and mortality compared with nonfunded studies. Detailed demographic data were missing from the literature, and we were unable to demonstrate the cause of different reported outcomes between industry-funded and nonfunded studies. Further investigations should be aimed toward understanding how funded studies report less adverse outcomes in analyzing VTE after TJA. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Purpose Sources of funding and principal investigator (PI) leadership for clinical trials using radiation therapy (RT) are not well characterized but are important mediators of innovation, particularly because funding for trials from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has decreased and industry funding has increased. We sought to determine characteristics of trials using RT that are associated with industry funding, NIH funding, and radiation oncologist (RO) PI leadership. Methods and Materials www.ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for all open, interventional trials that administered RT. Logistic regression was used to identify associations between trial characteristics, receipt of funding type (NIH, industry, or other), and PI leadership. Results The authors identified 1469 oncology trials, of which 41% were based in the United States, 56% were based internationally, and 3% were based in the United States and internationally. Of these, 22% were RT monotherapy, 53% were bimodality (40% RT + drug, 13% RT + surgery), and 24% were trimodality. Although ROs led 60% of all trials, industry-sponsored trials were significantly less likely to have RO PIs (35% RO vs 65% non-RO PI; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.73), to fund trials that did not incorporate drug therapy (aOR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.10-0.35), or to fund phase III trials (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.11-0.60) because industry-sponsored trials favored smaller phase I trials. NIH-funded trials were not associated with PI type and, although not statistically significant, favored larger phase III trials (unadjusted OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.99-4.29). ROs were less likely to lead trials incorporating drug therapy (aOR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.22-0.41). Conclusions ROs are less likely than other specialties to lead trials that use RT in combination with drug therapy or surgery and more likely to lead trials supported by nonindustry, non-NIH funding. This suggests a need for ROs to lead multimodality trials and to consider opportunities to interact with industry. As NIH resources decrease, alternative funding is needed to support innovation, particularly in in RT-alone trials.

This brief report examines whether there are differences in aspects of different characteristics, including design/methodologies of responsible gambling (RG), between studies funded by industry as compared to other sources. To investigate this, the authors used those studies included in a recent meta-analysis focusing on the empirical basis of RG initiatives (Ladouceur et al. in Addict Res Theory 25:225-235, 2017). We examined eight associations between funding sources, and different design/methodological characteristics of these studies; type of strategy, inclusion of comparison groups, measurement scales and repeated measures, publication source, number of inclusion criteria met, secondary sources of funding, publication year. The results revealed no statistically significant difference between the funding source, and the index study characteristics. These results do not support claims that funding exerts influence on the design or methodologies of RG studies. However, the absence of statistically significant findings should not be used to assert the absence of a funding effect because there are many reasons for failing to find differences, or interpretation of findings. Unexpectedly, a third of the papers included in this study failed to disclose their funding sources. This finding highlights the need for more open and transparent disclosures.

BACKGROUND It has been previously reported that over 20% of surgical trials will be discontinued prematurely raising ethical and financial concerns. Previous studies have been limited in scope owing to the need for manual review of selected trials. To date, there has been no broad analysis comparing surgical and nonsurgical registered clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS ClinicalTrials.gov was queried October 7, 2017 for all US trials from 2005 to 2017. Trials were assigned to surgical or nonsurgical groups by automated sorting. The sorting algorithm was validated by comparison with manual assignments made by blinded investigators. Comparisons were made between trial status, funding sources, and trial design. The reasons for discontinuation were examined and tabulated. RESULTS The database search yielded 82,719 nonsurgical and 5779 surgical trials after automatic assignment. The algorithm for assignments had an overall accuracy of 87.99% and a positive likelihood ratio of 6.09 and negative likelihood ratio of 0.093. Significant differences existed in trial status (nonsurgical versus surgical: completed: 55.51% versus 39.49%, P

Background: In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented volume of almost 3,000 clinical trials registered worldwide. We aimed to describe the COVID-19 clinical trial research agenda in Germany during the first year of the pandemic. Methods: We identified randomized clinical trials assessing interventions to treat or prevent COVID-19 that were registered in 2020 and recruited or planned to recruit participants in Germany. We requested recruitment information from trial investigators as of April 2021. Results: In 2020, 65 trials were completely (n=27) or partially (n=38) conducted in Germany. Most trials investigated interventions to treat COVID-19 (86.2%; 56/65), in hospitalized patients (67.7%; 44/65), with industry funding (53.8%; 35/65). Few trials were completed (21.5%; 14/65). Overall, 187,179 participants were planned to be recruited (20,696 in Germany), with a median number of 106 German participants per trial (IQR 40 to 345). From the planned German participants, 13.4% were recruited (median 15 per trial (IQR 0 to 44). Conclusions: The overall German contribution to the worldwide COVID-19 clinical trial research agenda was modest. Few trials delivered urgently needed evidence. Most trials did not meet recruitment goals. Evaluation and international comparison of the challenges for conducting clinical trials in Germany is needed.

Background Wide-spread concerns have been raised about possible bias in published surgical non-inferiority trials. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to identify the existence of bias, and provided recommendations for future non-inferiority trials. Methods Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched (last update on 27 April 2020) to include published phase II and phase III non-inferiority surgical trials. We collected general information and parameters associated with trial design. The association between extracted factors and establishment of non-inferiority was then analyzed. Results A total of 347 trials were included in this study. Only 13 (3.7%) trials reported the pre-specified non-inferiority margin in registration, and 99 (28.5%) trials justified margin selection in ultimate trial publications. A significant association was found between industry funding and increased odds of achieving non-inferiority [odds ratio (OR): 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06 to 1.30, P=0.001]. Moreover, trials which had been presented in conferences were less likely to claim non-inferiority (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.99, P=0.035). Conclusions Our study was the first quantitative analysis revealing the presence of biases in findings of existing surgical non-inferiority trials, which could possibly mislead surgeons' clinical decision making. We suggest improving reporting of detailed study design especially funding sources as well as margin justification for future trials. We also encourage conference presentation of ongoing trials prior to the ultimate publication.

Objectives The aim of this study was to identify and quantify the characteristics of studies associated with the likelihood of publication. Study Design and Setting We searched for manuscripts that tracked cohorts of clinical studies (“cohorts”) that from launch to publication. We explored the association of study characteristics with the probability of publication via traditional meta-analyses and meta-regression using random effects models. Results The literature review identified 85 cohorts of studies that met our inclusion criteria. The probability of publication was significantly higher for studies whose characteristics were favorable (odds ratio [OR] = 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.62, 2.57) or statistically significant (OR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.52, 2.81), had a multicenter design (OR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.16, 1.45), and were of later regulatory phase (3/4 vs. 1/2, OR = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.49). Industry funding was modestly associated with lower (OR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.99) probability of publication. An exploratory analysis of effect modification revealed that the effect of the study characteristic “favorable results” on likelihood for publication was stronger for industry-funded studies. Conclusion The study characteristics of favorable and significant results were associated with greater probability of publication.

Industry is a major source of funding for scientific research. There is also a growing concern for how it corrupts researchers faced with conflicts of interest. As such, the debate has focused on whether researchers have maintained their integrity. In this article we draw on both the history of medicine and formal modeling to argue that given methodological diversity and a merit-based system, industry funding can bias a community without corrupting any particular individual. We close by considering a policy solution (i.e., independent funding) that may seem to promote unbiased inquiry but that actually exacerbates the problem without additional restrictions.

The decline in federal research grant funding and incentive-based budget models to support a university’s mission has necessitated a paradigm shift in the pursuit of available sources of funding. Programs built around federal funding are once again pursuing funding opportunities from industry. Universities are reevaluating their research funding models and career expectations (tenure, promotion) that support a researcher, laboratories, and a defined research agenda. Kinesiology departments are in a strong position to pursue industry funding for fitness, sports, and performance-related research. While grant funding focuses on empirical data-driven research, industry looks for product exposure, validation (empirical data to support claims), and commercialization. Industry partnerships can provide funding in supporting research, developing sponsor-named facilities that benefit both parties. With these cooperative efforts come some unique challenges (financial, proprietary, data interpretation, etc.) that must be addressed.

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: Cervical arthroplasty is an increasingly popular treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. An understanding of the potential adverse events (AEs) is important to help both clinicians and patients. We sought to provide a comprehensive systematic review of the AEs reported in all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cervical disc arthroplasty in an attempt to characterize the quality of reporting. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and Web of Science for RCTs of cervical disc arthroplasty reporting AEs. We reported the most frequently mentioned AEs, including dysphagia/dysphonia, vascular compromise, dural injury, and infections. We recorded the presence of industry funding and scored the quality of collection methods and reporting of AEs. Results: Of the 3734 identified articles, 29 articles met full inclusion criteria. The quality of AE reporting varied significantly between studies, and a combined meta-analysis was not feasible. The 29 articles covered separate 19 RCTs. Eight studies were US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational device exemption (IDE) trials. Rates were recorded for the following AEs: dysphagia/dysphonia (range = 1.3% to 27.2%), vascular compromise (range = 1.1% to 2.4%), cervical wound infection (range = 1.2% to 22.5%), and cerebrospinal fluid leak (range = 0.8% to 7.1%). Conclusions: There is a lack of consistency in reporting of AEs among RCTs of cervical arthroplasty. FDA IDE trials scored better in AE event reporting compared to other studies. Standardized definitions for AEs and standardized data collection methodology are needed to improve future studies.

Hypothesis/Background Concern exists regarding the reliability of published manuscripts due to influence of industry funding and author financial conflicts of interest (COI). We aim to determine whether COI affect the outcome of a research study or the level of evidence (LOE). Methods We reviewed 244 consecutive original articles in Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery from January 2014 to December 2014. Articles included only those available in the printed journal. For LOE, 178 articles from the Shoulder and Elbow section were used (basic science articles were excluded). COI was determined by comparing financial disclosures and stated funding sources to the study content. Results COI were present in 44 of 244 articles (18%); of these, 24 (55%) had positive outcomes. Of the 200 without COI, 128 (64%) had positive outcomes. This difference in proportions was determined to be significant (P = .007). COI were present in 27 shoulder and elbow articles; of these, only 1 was LOE I or II (4%). Of the 151 without COI, 34 (23%) were LOE I or II. This difference in proportions was determined to be significant (P = .023). Conclusion We found that Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery articles with COI are neither more likely to have positive outcomes nor higher LOE than those with no COI. Although the χ2 analysis found a statistically significant relationship between COI and study outcomes, the study outcomes were more often positive in articles without COI. This is contrary to previously published analyses that found outcomes to be more positive in articles with COI.

BackgroundSponsorship bias has never been investigated for non-pharmacological treatments like psychotherapy.AimsWe examined industry funding and author financial conflict of interest (COI) in randomised controlled trials directly comparing psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy in depression.MethodWe conducted a meta-analysis with subgroup comparisons for industry v. non-industry-funded trials, and respectively for trial reports with author financial COI v. those without.ResultsIn total, 45 studies were included. In most analyses, pharmacotherapy consistently showed significant effectiveness over psychotherapy,g= −0.11 (95% CI −0.21 to −0.02) in industry-funded trials. Differences between industry and non-industry-funded trials were significant, a result only partly confirmed in sensitivity analyses. We identified five instances where authors of the original article had not reported financial COI.ConclusionsIndustry-funded trials for depression appear to subtly favour pharmacotherapy over psychotherapy. Disclosure of all financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry should be encouraged.

Objectives Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship of professional medical associations is prevalent and its impact on medical education and practice has generated widespread concern. Less is known about industry payments to medical practitioners in leadership positions within these organisations, despite their roles as respected thought leaders with influence over clinical norms. Diabetes and cardiovascular disease represent highly profitable markets for industry, with newly-available medicines, large and increasing patient populations, chronic treatment regimens and expanding diagnostic categories. We investigated the extent of pharmaceutical industry payments to leaders of professional medical associations associated with cardiovascular disease and diabetes in Australia. Method We searched for non-surgical medical associations focused on diabetes or cardiovascular disease, and general professional associations for doctors who routinely manage these conditions, and identified medical practitioners in leadership positions (2016 – 2018) from the associations’ websites. Payment details were obtained from publicly-available reports of pharmaceutical industry payments to healthcare professionals (October 2015 – April 2018) downloaded from Medicines Australia, the pharmaceutical trade organisation, and compared against payment disclosures on the associations’ websites. Results We identified 197 leaders from 10 associations; 48 leaders (24.4%) received 467 industry payments, totalling $932,270. Payments were primarily for chairing/speaking at meetings (240/467 payments; 51.4%) and advisory board participation (118/467; 25.3%). The number and proportion of payment recipients was higher within diabetes associations (24/33; 72.7%) and cardiovascular associations (14/34; 41.2%) in for general associations (7.6%; 10/132). The highest paid association was diabetes-focused and its leaders received a total of $239,617. The median payment for endocrinologists ($7,493, IQR: 2,572 – 20,534) was approximately half that of cardiologists and GPs. GPs from diabetes societies received a higher median payment ($19,189, IQR: $11,341 – $28,547) than GPs in general associations ($7,401, IQR: $2,231 – $32,484). Only one association disclosed industry funding to leaders on its website, but disclosures were incomplete. Conclusions A substantial proportion of leaders of cardiovascular- and diabetes-specific societies received pharmaceutical industry payments, raising concerns about industry influence on diagnostic and treatment guidelines, medical education, professional policy and advocacy, and clinical norms. In the context of such far-reaching influence, medical organisations and their leadership have a responsibility to ensure conflicts of interest are disclosed, minimised and managed responsibly.

For over 20 years, the academic human-computer interaction (HCI) and computer supported collaborative work (CSCW) communities have conducted research on user-facing hardware, software, and social media platforms dominated by a few key firms. Even as the contributions made by these scholars have shaped the development of these technologies, so too does industry funding play a key role in convening and supporting our community. This panel brings together HCI researchers for a reflective conversation on industry funding support for HCI.

Background: The relationship between industry and the orthopaedic community is under increasing scrutiny. Industry traditionally has funded a substantial amount of the orthopaedic research published in this and other journals. The objective of the present study was to investigate associations between the level of evidence and declared source(s) of funding in papers published in the American volume of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. Methods: All articles published in the American volume of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from January 2003 to December 2007 were reviewed by a single individual. Primary research papers with an assigned level of evidence were assessed with regard to source of funding, subject area, and results. The association between source of funding and level of evidence was described with use of contingency tables and chi-square tests. Results: Of 886 studies with an assigned level of evidence, 246 were funded by industry, of which 124 (50%) were graded as Level-IV evidence. Among 274 studies funded by governments, foundations, or universities, only seventy-nine (29%) were graded as Level-IV evidence. Among 366 studies with no funding declared, 209 (57%) were graded as Level-IV evidence. The association between industry funding and a lower level of evidence was significant (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: While industry funded a larger number of studies than any other single source in this journal, the level of evidence of industry-funded studies was lower that that for studies funded by governments, foundations, or universities. Improving the scientific quality of industry-funded research might increase the quality of evidence for making orthopaedic decisions.

We have identified ‘spin’ in abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with nonsignificant primary endpoints in psychiatry and psychology journals. This is a cross-sectional review of clinical trials with nonsignificant primary endpoints published in psychiatry and psychology journals from January 2012 to December 2017. The main outcome was the frequency and manifestation of spin in the abstracts. We define spin as the ‘use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite a statistically nonsignificant difference for the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from statistically nonsignificant results’. We have also assessed the relationship between industry funding and spin. Of the 486 RCTs examined, 116 were included in our analysis of spin. Spin was identified in 56% (n=65) of those included. Spin was found in 2 (2%) titles, 24 (21%) abstract results sections and 57 (49.1%) abstract conclusion sections. Evidence of spin was simultaneously identified in both results and conclusions sections in 15% of RCTs (n=17). Twelve articles reported industry funding (10%). Industry funding was not associated with increased odds of spin in the abstract (unadjusted OR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.3 to 3.2). We found no relationship between industry funding and spin in abstracts. These findings raise concerns about the effects spin may have on clinicians. Further steps could be taken to address spin, including inviting reviewers to comment on the presence of spin and updating Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines to contain language discouraging spin.

The growing commercialization of scientific research has raised important concerns about industry bias. According to some evidence, so-called industry bias can affect the integrity of the science as well as the direction of the research agenda. I argue that conceptualizing industry's influence in scientific research in terms of bias is unhelpful. Insofar as industry sponsorship negatively affects the integrity of the research, it does so through biasing mechanisms that can affect any research independently of the source of funding. Talk about industry bias thus offers no insight into the particular epistemic shortcomings at stake. If the concern is with the negative effects that industry funding can have on the research agenda, conceptualizing this influence as bias obscures the ways in which such impact is problematic and limits our ability to offer solutions that can successfully address the concerns raised by the growing role of private funding in science.

There is a paucity of knowledge on research commercialization by university scientists worldwide. The objective of this paper is to identify the role that Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) and direct Industrial Funding play in university research commercialization in transition economies of Azerbaijan, Belarus and Kazakhstan during 2015–2017. We do this by developing a novel database and a multi-level model which explains how individual attributes, organizational and ecosystem characteristics explain the extent of knowledge commercialization.\ud \ud We apply the generalized Heckman approach to account for two selection biases, reducing the sample from 2602 to 272 scientists, and further use a mixed-method approach to analyse 27 face-to-face interviews with researchers and TTO managers. The results demonstrate that research commercialization is not associated with the existence and awareness of TTO or the establishment of commercialization contracts via TTO, but the direct industrial funding of university research. Taken together the findings have clear implications for scholars, scientific entrepreneurs, TTOs and investors who aim to exploit university knowledge in transition economies.

Aim Selective outcome reporting (SOR) is a type of bias that occurs when the primary outcome of a trial protocol is changed or omitted in the paper. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of SOR in publications of randomized clinical trials (RCT) concerning dental implants. Materials and methods Two reviewers independently screened protocols registered at ClinicalTrials.gov until February/2019. If the protocol met the eligibility criteria, the reviewers tried to identify the corresponding publication. Data extraction was carried out by the same reviewers. Primary and secondary outcomes were recorded for each trial and compared to outcomes previously described in protocols. Results A total of 49 protocols were included. SOR was identified in 27 (55.1%) trials. The major discrepancies were as follows: protocol-defined primary outcome omitted in the publication (n = 6, 12.2%), new primary outcome introduced (n = 8, 16.3%), discrepancy in the primary outcome time frame (n = 17, 34.7%) and new secondary outcome introduced (n = 31, 63.3%). SOR was significantly associated with industry funding (p = 0.04) and timing of registration (p = 0.04). Conclusions Our results indicate a high rate of SOR in dental implants clinical trials. Use of registry data during the peer-review process may help decreasing SOR.

With reductions in public funding, alternate research funding is essential to surgical oncologists (SOs). We aimed to examine current trends in industry funding of SOs. Society of Surgical Oncology surgeons were identified and matched with board certification and years in practice. Departmental and hospital data were evaluated, and industry payments from 2013 to 2017 were matched with the Open Payment Data. Of the 1670 SOs identified, 922 (55%) had academic positions: 588 (64%) males and 334 (36%) females. Between 2013 and 2017, research payments totaling $46,596,706 were made to 162 SOs (17.5%): $40,774,716 (87%) for research related to drugs and clinical trials, compared with $5,194,199 (11%) for surgical devices (p = 0.018). Funding correlated with academic leadership and years in practice (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0037). Massachusetts ($9,060,976), Texas ($7,656,228), and New York ($4,210,864) received the most funding, whereas Utah ($1,533,166/SO), Massachusetts ($1,294,425/SO), and Oregon ($1,241,702/SO) received the highest average payments per SO. The majority of funding was from Novartis ($16,045,608), Amgen ($6,810,832), and Merck ($3,758,299), for an oncolytic vaccine (talimogene laherparepvec, $5,939,007), a BRAF inhibitor (dabrafenib, $5,727,309), and a KIT inhibitor (imatinib, $4,323,586). Male SOs received funding more frequently than females (120/588 [20%] vs. 42/334 [12.6%]; p = 0.0027). Males also received more general payments (travel/lodging, food/beverage, consulting/speaker fees): $48,830 vs. $11,867 per male and female, respectively (p = 0.0001). The majority of industry research payments to SOs are related to novel pharmaceuticals, which highlights the expanding influence SOs play in systemic therapies. Industry payments are influenced by location, gender, and academic leadership.

Concerns about conflicts of interest in commercially funded research have generated increasing disclosure requirements, but are these enough to assess influence? Using the Coca-Cola Company as an example, we explore its research agreements to understand influence. Freedom of Information requests identified 87,013 pages of documents, including five agreements between Coca-Cola and public institutions in the United States, and Canada. We assess whether they allowed Coca-Cola to exercise control or influence. Provisions gave Coca-Cola the right to review research in advance of publication as well as control over (1) study data, (2) disclosure of results and (3) acknowledgement of Coca-Cola funding. Some agreements specified that Coca-Cola has the ultimate decision about any publication of peer-reviewed papers prior to its approval of the researchers’ final report. If so desired, Coca-Cola can thus prevent publication of unfavourable research, but we found no evidence of this to date in the emails we received. The documents also reveal researchers can negotiate with funders successfully to remove restrictive clauses on their research. We recommend journals supplement funding disclosures and conflict-of-interest statements by requiring authors to attach funder agreements.

Public pressure for innovation plays a key role in determining the goals of neurosurgical research and practice. Public, philanthropic, and industry funding of research and innovation each have direct and differing effects on the advances achieved in neurosurgical practice, while public advocacy and pressure for specific treatments can shift clinical practice patterns. In this chapter, we will discuss how these varied forms of public pressure for innovation should meet the criteria of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, just as the care provided by neurosurgeons should.

Background Most studies are inclined to report positive rather than negative or inconclusive results. It is currently unknown how clinicians appraise the results of a randomized clinical trial. For example, how does the study funding source influence the appraisal of an RCT, and do positive findings influence perceived credibility and clinical relevance? This study investigates whether psychiatrists’ appraisal of a scientific abstract is influenced by industry funding disclosures and a positive outcome. Methods Dutch psychiatrists were randomized to evaluate a scientific abstract describing a fictitious RCT for a novel antipsychotic drug. Four different abstracts were created reporting either absence or presence of industry funding disclosure as well as a positive or a negative outcome. Primary outcomes were the perceived credibility and clinical relevance of the study results (10-point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes were the assessment of methodological quality and interest in reading the full article. Results Three hundred ninety-five psychiatrists completed the survey (completion rate 45%). Industry funding disclosure was found not to influence perceived credibility (Mean Difference MD 0.12; 95% CI − 0.28 to 0.47, p?) nor interpretation of its clinical relevance (MD 0.14; 95% CI − 0.54 to 0.27, p?). A negative outcome was perceived as more credible than a positive outcome (MD 0.81 points; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.18, p?), but did not affect clinical relevance scores (MD -0.14; 95% CI − 0.54 to 0.27). Conclusions In this study, industry funding disclosure was not associated with the perceived credibility nor judgement of clinical relevance of a fictional RCT by psychiatrists. Positive study outcomes were found to be less credible compared to negative outcomes, but industry funding had no significant effects. Psychiatrists may underestimate the influence of funding sources on research results. The fact that physicians indicated negative outcomes to be more credible may point to more awareness of existing publication bias in the scientific literature.

Background Industry sponsorship of public health research has received increasing scrutiny, and, as a result, many multinational corporations (MNCs), such as The Coca-Cola Company and Mars Inc., have committed to transparency with regard to what they fund, and the findings of funded research. However, these MNCs often fund charities, both national and international, which then support research and promote industry-favourable policy positions to leaders. We explore whether one industry funded charity, the International Life Sciences Institute (‘ILSI’), is the scientifically objective, non-lobby, internationally-credible body that it suggests it is, so as to aid the international health and scientific communities to judge ILSI’s outputs. Methods Between June 2015 and February 2018, U.S. Right to Know), a non-profit consumer and public health group, submitted five U.S. state Freedom of Information requests (FOIs) to explore ILSI engagement with industry, policy makers, and/or researchers, which garnered a total of 17,163 pages for analysis. Two researchers explored these documents to assess the activities and conduct of ILSI against its purported objectives. Results Within the received documents we identified instances of ILSI seeking to influence research, conferences, public messages, and policy, including instances of punishments for ILSI bodies failing to promote industry-favourable messaging. We identified ILSI promoting its agenda with national and international bodies to influence policy and law, causing the World Health Organization to withdraw from official relations with what it now considers a private sector entity. Conclusions ILSI seeks to influence individuals, positions, and policy, both nationally and internationally, and its corporate members deploy it as a tool to promote their interests globally. Our analysis of ILSI serves as a caution to those involved in global health governance to be wary of putatively independent research groups, and to practice due diligence before relying upon their funded studies and/or engaging in relationship with such groups.

Universities have been called upon to work more closely with the industry and actively take part in economic development. Research funding has been used as an instrument to direct research agenda and promote technology partnership. The study examines how research funding is associated with various academic engagement in the context of Singapore, a country with explicit policies to encourage university-industry collaboration. Based on a survey with 276 academics in STEM fields, we find that research funding does play a role in academic engagement. In particular, funding from industry is observed to have a significant correlation with patent licensing, consultancy, and serving on advisory board. In addition to funding, more on-the-ground university and government effort to support academic scientists in their commercialisation activity, in particular, new ventures, would be helpful. Ministry of Education (MOE) National Research Foundation (NRF) Accepted version The study was supported by Singapore Ministry of Education [MOE AcRF Tier 1 Grant] and the Singapore National Research Foundation [NRF2014 - NRF - SRIE001 - 023].

The linkages between science and industry have long been of interest to scholars studying technological change. Recent studies demonstrate that resource exchange between science and industry may lead to patterns of co-evolution, with major implications for the rate and direction of innovation. However, we currently know very little about how the dynamics of co-evolution between research institutes and industry are influenced by organizational characteristics. To address this shortcoming, in this paper we draw on a comparative case study of the world's two largest research institutes for solar photovoltaic power and study how differences in their financial resource dependence influence patterns of co-evolution. We demonstrate that when a research institute is heavily reliant on industry funding, it leads to close co-evolution of science and industry, thereby raising the risk of a mutual lock-in into specific technologies. A heavy reliance on public funding, on the other hand, contributes to the decoupling of science and industry evolution, which entails the risk of research having limited impact on practice. By developing a framework that shows how co-evolution between science and industry is affected by resource dependence, our study contributes to the literature on science-industry collaboration, co-evolution, and technological paradigms. Moreover, our study bears important implications for policy makers and managers of research institutes interested in spurring technological change.

ObjectivesTo examine how often study funding and author conflicts of interest are stated in science and health press releases and in corresponding news; and whether disclosure in press releases is associated with disclosure in news. Second, to specifically examine disclosure rates in industry-funded studies.DesignRetrospective content analysis with two cohorts.SettingPress releases about health, psychology or neuroscience research from research universities and journals from 2011 (n=996) and 2015 (n=254) and their associated news stories (n=1250 and 578).Primary outcome measureMention of study funding and author conflicts of interest.ResultsIn our 2011 cohort, funding was reported in 94% (934/996) of journal articles, 29% (284/996) of press releases and 9% (112/1250) of news. The corresponding figures for 2015 were: 84% (214/254), 52% (131/254) and 10% (58/578). A similar pattern was seen for the industry funding subset. If the press release reported study funding, news was more likely to: 22% if in the press release versus 7% if not in the press release (2011), relative risk (RR) 3.1 (95% CI 2.1 to 4.3); for 2015, corresponding figures were 16% versus 2%, RR 6.8 (95% CI 2.2 to 17). In journal articles, 27% and 22% reported a conflict of interest, while less than 2% of press releases or news ever mentioned these.ConclusionsPress releases and associated news did not frequently state funding sources or conflicts of interest. Funding information in press releases was associated with such information in news. Given converging evidence that news draws on press release content, including statements of funding and conflicts of interest in press releases may lead to increased reporting in news.

Summary This roadmap examines the future of microbiology research and technology in fossil fuel energy recovery. Globally, the human population will be reliant on fossil fuels for energy and chemical feedstocks for at least the medium term. Microbiology is already important in many areas relevant to both upstream and downstream activities in the oil industry. However, the discipline has struggled for recognition in a world dominated by geophysicists and engineers despite widely known but still poorly understood microbially mediated processes e.g. reservoir biodegradation, reservoir souring and control, microbial enhanced oil recovery. The role of microbiology is even less understood in developing industries such as shale gas recovery by fracking or carbon capture by geological storage. In the future, innovative biotechnologies may offer new routes to reduced emissions pathways especially when applied to the vast unconventional heavy oil resources formed, paradoxically, from microbial activities in the geological past. However, despite this potential, recent low oil prices may make industry funding hard to come by and recruitment of microbiologists by the oil and gas industry may not be a high priority. With regards to public funded research and the imperative for cheap secure energy for economic growth in a growing world population, there are signs of inherent conflicts between policies aimed at a low carbon future using renewable technologies and policies which encourage technologies which maximize recovery from our conventional and unconventional fossil fuel assets., A perspective on the potential future roles of microbiology in the fossil fuel sector is presented. This is placed in the context of technical and economic factors that may facilitate or mitigate against the uptake of new technologies.

Introduction Industry funding of surgical training programs poses a potential conflict of interest. With the recent implementation of the Sunshine Act, industry funding can be more accurately determined. Objective To determine the financial relationship between faculty surgeons within colon and rectal fellowship programs and industry. Design Review of industry funding based on the first reporting period (August-December, 2013) using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services online database. Setting ACGME certified colon and rectum surgical fellowship programs. Participants Overall, 343 Faculty surgeons from 55 colon and rectum surgical fellowship programs were identified using the American Board of Colon and Rectum Surgery website. There was complete identification of faculty surgeons in 47 (85.5%) programs, partially complete identification (i.e., >80%) in 6 (10.9%) programs, and inadequate identification of faculty in 2 (3.6%) programs. Main Outcome Industry funding as defined by the Sunshine Act included general payments (honorariums, consulting fees, food and beverage, and travel), research payments, and amount invested. Results In all, 69.1% of program directors and 59.4% of other faculty received at least one payment during the reporting period ( Δ 9.7%, 95% CI: −4.4% to 23.8%, p=0.18). Program directors received higher amounts of funding than other faculty ($7072.90 vs. $2,819.29, Δ $4,253.61, 95% CI: $1132-$7375, p=0.008). Overall, 49 of 53 (93%) programs had surgeons receive funding, with a median of 3.5 surgeons receiving funding per program. A total of 65 companies made payments to surgeons, with 80.1% of the funding categorized as general payments, 16.2% as investments, and 3.7% as research payments. Conclusions Industry funding was common. This financial relationship poses a potential conflict of interest in training fellows for future practice.