Al-Marzouki, S., Roberts, I., Evans, S., & Marshall, T. (2008). Selective reporting in clinical trials: Analysis of trial protocols accepted by the lancet. Lancet, 372(9634), 201.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61060-0
Selective reporting in clinical trials occurs when outcome data are collected but not reported, and when investigators do many analyses but report only the most favorable. It can distort the results of trials and bias meta-analyses. They found major differences between the protocols and the reports for primary outcomes, and several trials with no prespecified subgroup analyses in the protocol, subgroup analyses were done in 11. None gave the reason for these analyses.
Alpert, J. S. (2008). Dealing with ethical conflicts in clinical research. The American Journal of Medicine, 121(6), 457.
Available at http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002934308000557
Commentary about the New Yorker Article and calls for open discussions to help find a system for satisfactory oversight of the for-profit research test centers.
Alpert, J. S. (2008). Doctors and the drug industry: Further thoughts for dealing with potential conflicts of interest? The American Journal of Medicine, 121(4), 253-255.
Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002934308000533
This is a commentary about the relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and physicians. The author also gives a few potential solutions that do not require a complete separation of doctors and pharmaceutical representatives.
Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(4), 454-465.
Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/289/4/454?ijkey=1a43091dd820ea0bb204b621791693c30769d1ca
Financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions are widespread. Conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways.
Berger, E. (2008). Ghostwriters, data manipulation and dollar diplomacy: How drug companies pull the strings in clinical research. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 52(2), 137-139.
Available at: http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/102441555-2/jorg=journal&source=&sp=20864731&sid=0/N/652824/1.html?issn=0196-0644
Article discusses the involvement of pharmaceutical companies in studies such as Merck and VIOXX as well as how they are involved in Congress. The article also discusses proposed federal oversight over drug testing.
Bero, L., Oostvogel, F., Bacchetti, P., & Lee, K. (2007). Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: Why some statins appear more efficacious than others. PLoS Medicine, 4(6), e184.
Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17550302
Authors concluded that “RCTs of head-to-head comparisons of statins with other drugs are more likely to report results and conclusions favoring the sponsor’s product compared to the comparator drug. This bias in drug-drug comparison trials should be considered when making decisions regarding drug choice.”
Bhandari, M., Busse, J. W., Jackowski, D., Montori, V. M., Schunemann, H., Sprague, S., et al. (2004). Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal = Journal De l’Association Medicale Canadienne, 170(4), 477-480.
Available at: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/4/477
Industry-funded trials are more likely to be associated with statistically significant pro-industry findings, both in medical trials and surgical interventions.
Carpenter, D., Zucker, E. J., & Avorn, J. (2008). Drug-review deadlines and safety problems. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358(13), 1354-1361.
Available at: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/358/13/1354
The Prescription Drug User Fee Act imposes deadlines for completion of drug review and some think this may result in rushed approvals and the emergence of unanticipated safety problems once a product is in clinical use.
Chan, A. W., Hrobjartsson, A., Haahr, M. T., Gotzsche, P. C., & Altman, D. G. (2004). Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(20), 2457-2465.
Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/291/20/2457
The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols. Published articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention.
Chan, A. W., Krleza-Jeric, K., Schmid, I., & Altman, D. G. (2004). Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the canadian institutes of health research. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal = Journal De l’Association Medicale Canadienne, 171(7), 735-740.
Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15451835
Selective reporting of outcomes frequently occurs in publications of high-quality government-funded trials.
Choudhry, N. K., Stelfox, H. T., & Detsky, A. S. (2002). Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(5), 612-617.
Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5/612?ijkey=9ba63b8134fa165d522a7cb2360f1c9d1831c464
A survey of CPG authors and their ties to pharmaceutical companies.Study highlights the need for appropriate disclosure of financial conflicts of interest for authors of CPGs and a formal process for discussing these conflicts prior to CPG development.
Cundiff, D. K. (2007). Evidence-based medicine and the cochrane collaboration on trial. MedGenMed : Medscape General Medicine, 9(2), 56.
Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1994886
Commentary about a number of peer reviewers for the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews found to have undisclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical corporations that may have led to ethical lapses in their reviews of RCTs.
Curfman, G. D., Morrissey, S., & Drazen, J. M. (2005). Expression of concern: Bombardier et al., “comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” N engl J med 2000;343:1520-8. The New England Journal of Medicine, 353(26), 2813-2814.
Available at: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/353/26/2813
Lack of inclusion of the three events resulted in an understatement of the difference in risk of myocardial infarction between the rofecoxib and naproxen groups.
DeAngelis, C. D., & Fontanarosa, P. B. (2008). Impugning the integrity of medical science: The adverse effects of industry influence. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(15), 1833-1835.
Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299/15/1833
This is an article written by an editor for JAMA discussing the two studies based on the Rofecoxib litigation. Relates to these articles:
– Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: A case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation.
– Reporting mortality findings in trials of rofecoxib for alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment: A case study based on documents from rofecoxib litigation.
Dieppe, P. A., Ebrahim, S., Martin, R. M., & Juni, P. (2004). Lessons from the withdrawal of rofecoxib. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 329(7471), 867-868.
Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7471/867
Discusses VIOXX and gives some suggested measures to ensure drug safety before definite licensing of a drug.
Djulbegovic, B., Lacevic, M., Cantor, A., Fields, K. K., Bennett, C. L., Adams, J. R., et al. (2000). The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet, 356(9230), 635-638.
Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673600026052
“The reported bias in research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry may be a consequence of violations of the uncertainty principle. Sponsors of clinical trials should be encouraged to report all results and to choose appropriate comparative controls.”
Doucet, M., & Sismondo, S. (2008). Evaluating solutions to sponsorship bias. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(8), 627-630.
Available at: http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/8/627
Articles claims that the policies normally proposed for dealing with sponsorship bias are unable to eliminate it. Only completely separating public clinical research from pharmaceutical industry funding can eliminate sponsorship bias.
Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., Killen, J., & Grady, C. (2004). What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? the benchmarks of ethical research. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 189(5), 930-937.
Available at: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/381709?cookieSet=1
Because of concern over research in developing countries, the authors propose specific and practical benchmarks to guide researchers and research-ethics committees in assessing how well the enumerated ethical principles have been fulfilled in particular cases.
Fish, S. S. (1999). Research ethics in emergency medicine. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America, 17(2), 461-74, xii.
Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0733862705700729
“This article’s intent is to inform investigators and others of the rules for conducting ethical research, and by example, show how overlooking these rules can be harmful not only to the patients involved and to future patients but also to the entire research community.”
Fisher, J. A. (2008). Practicing research ethics: Private-sector physicians & pharmaceutical clinical trials. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 66(12), 2495-2505.
Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18353515
Discusses why private-sector physicians’ construction of ethics is shaped by their obligations to pharmaceutical companies rather than to human subjects or to science more generally.
Greenland, P., & Lloyd-Jones, D. (2008). Critical lessons from the ENHANCE trial. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(8), 953-955.
Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299/8/953
Discusses lessons that can be learned from the ENHANCE Trial. (This topic may contain some speculation as the ENHANCE study has not been peer-reviewed yet in a medical journal)
Heres, S., Davis, J., Maino, K., Jetzinger, E., Kissling, W., & Leucht, S. (2006). Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: An exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(2), 185-194.
Available at: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/163/2/185
The authors make a number of concrete suggestions for ways in which potential sources of bias can be addressed by study initiators, peer reviewers of studies under consideration for publication, and readers of published studies.
Hernandez, A. V., Boersma, E., Murray, G. D., Habbema, J. D., & Steyerberg, E. W. (2006). Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: Are most of them misleading? American Heart Journal, 151(2), 257-264.
Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002870305004394
Study of RCTs and found that reporting of subgroup analysis needs to be substantially improved because emphasis on these secondary results may mislead treatment decisions.
Holmes, D. R.,Jr, Firth, B. G., James, A., Winslow, R., Hodgson, P. K., Gamble, G. L., et al. (2004). Conflict of interest. American Heart Journal, 147(2), 228-237.
Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002870303008330
Article provides a review of the Conflict of interest issues and recommendations for how to eliminate them from our system.
Hopewell, S., Clarke, M., Stewart, L., & Tierney, J. (2007). Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online), (2)(2), MR000011.
Available at: http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/MR000011/frame.html
The authors conclude that “trials with positive results are published sooner than other trials. This has important implications for the timing of the initiation and updating of a review, especially if there is an association between the inclusion of a trial in a review and its publication status. It is of particular concern when one considers reviews containing only a small number of studies.”
Ioannidis, J. P. (2008). Effectiveness of antidepressants: An evidence myth constructed from a thousand randomized trials? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine : PEHM, 3, 14.
Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18505564
The author discusses “how the use of many small randomized trials with clinically non-relevant outcomes, improper interpretation of statistical significance, manipulated study design, biased selection of study populations, short follow-up, and selective and distorted reporting of results has built and nourished a seemingly evidence-based myth on antidepressant effectiveness and how higher evidence standards, with very large long-term trials and careful prospective meta-analyses of individual-level data may reach closer to the truth and clinically useful evidence.”
Jorgensen, A. W., Hilden, J., & Gotzsche, P. C. (2006). Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: Systematic review. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 333(7572), 782.
Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7572/782
Industry supported reviews were of lesser quality than Cochrane reviews of the same drugs and always recommended the experimental drug without reservations, which none of the Cochrane reviews did. Industry supported reviews should be read with caution.
Lenzer, J. (2002). Alteplase for stroke: Money and optimistic claims buttress the “brain attack” campaign. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 324(7339), 723-729.
Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7339/723
Article discusses the American Heart Association’s involvement with Genentech and the recommendations of using Alteplase for stroke.
Lenzer, J. (2008). Review launched after harvard psychiatrist failed to disclose industry funding. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 336(7657), 1327.
Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/336/7657/1327-a
A Harvard professor did not disclose financial ties with pharmaceutical companies. He is considered one of the most influential psychiatry researchers in the world.
Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 326(7400), 1167-1170.
Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7400/1167
Authors conclude “systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.”
Lexchin, J., & Light, D. W. (2006). Commercial influence and the content of medical journals. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 332(7555), 1444-1447.
Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7555/1444
Article explores the possible commercial bias affecting journal editors and owners.
Lichter, P. R. (2008). Debunking myths in physician-industry conflicts of interest. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 146(2), 159-171.
Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002939408002766
The article discusses strong evidence that the successful marketing tactics by industry have driven up the cost of healthcare unnecessarily, and calls out all physicians to recognize their physician-industry voluntary financial relationships for what they are: a conflict of interest over their duty to patients and to the public.
LoGerfo, F. W. (2007). Carotid stents: Unleashed, unproven. Circulation, 116(14), 1596-601; discussion 1601.
Available at: http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/116/14/1596maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Carotid+stents%3A+unleashed%2C+unproven&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
An examination of the SAPPHIRE trial. “This is a case study of the flaws in our system for the evaluation and approval of medical devices that warrant serious reflection on our ability to properly create and act on accurate information and live up to our commitment to evidence-based decision making.”
Melander, H., Ahlqvist-Rastad, J., Meijer, G., & Beermann, B. (2003). Evidence b(i)ased medicine–selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: Review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 326(7400), 1171-1173.
Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7400/1171
Study investigates the publication bias in the SSRI studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Finds that recommendations for a specific SSRI from the publicly available databases alone, will most likely be based upon biased evidence.
Mitka, M. (2008). Clash over drug approvals. JAMA, 300(2), 160.
Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/2/160
Sen Chuck Grassley (R, Iowa) defends his investigation into the FDA drug approval process. The investigation came under fire by Mark Thornton, MD, PhD, MPH, the senior vice president of product development at GenVec.
Nieto, A., Mazon, A., Pamies, R., Linana, J. J., Lanuza, A., Jimenez, F. O., et al. (2007). Adverse effects of inhaled corticosteroids in funded and nonfunded studies. Archives of Internal Medicine, 167(19), 2047-2053.
Available at: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/19/2047
Study finds that funding by the industry is associated with design features less likely to lead to finding statistically significant adverse effects and with a more favorable clinical interpretation of such findings.
Okike, K., Kocher, M. S., Mehlman, C. T., & Bhandari, M. (2008). Industry-sponsored research. Injury, 39(6), 666-680.
Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0020138308001149
Article reviews the literature and makes recommendations for the ethical conduct of biomedical research in the presence of financial conflicts of interest.
Pai, S. A., Lakshmi, P. K., Rao, B. C., & Sahni, P. (2003). Pharmaceutical companies and the third world. Lancet, 361(9363), 1136-1137.
Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673603128814
Article expresses concern over FDA banned pharmaceuticals being sold in other countries.
Peppercorn, J., Blood, E., Winer, E., & Partridge, A. (2007). Association between pharmaceutical involvement and outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials. Cancer, 109(7), 1239-1246.
Available at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114129807/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Article finds that pharmaceutical involvement in published clinical breast cancer research may affect study design, focus, and results.
Psaty, B. M., Furberg, C. D., Ray, W. A., & Weiss, N. S. (2004). Potential for conflict of interest in the evaluation of suspected adverse drug reactions: Use of cerivastatin and risk of rhabdomyolysis. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(21), 2622-2631.
Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/21/2622
Article looks at litigation papers and suggests that Bayor knew that there was a possible link between Baycol and rhabdomyolosis shortly after it hit the market.
Psaty, B. M., & Kronmal, R. A. (2008). Reporting mortality findings in trials of rofecoxib for alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment: A case study based on documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(15), 1813-1817.
Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299/15/1813
The findings from this case study suggest that additional protections for human research participants, including new approaches for the conduct, oversight, and reporting of industry-sponsored trials, are necessary.
Ridker, P. M., & Torres, J. (2006). Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000-2005. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(19), 2270-2274.
Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/19/2270
“Recent cardiovascular trials funded by for-profit organizations are more likely to report positive findings than trials funded by not-for-profit organizations, as are trials using surrogate rather than clinical end points. Trials jointly funded by not-for-profit and for-profit organizations appear to report positive findings at a rate approximately midway between rates observed in trials supported solely by one or the other of these entities.”
Ross, J. S., Hill, K. P., Egilman, D. S., & Krumholz, H. M. (2008). Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: A case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(15), 1800-1812.
Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299/15/1800
This case-study review of industry documents demonstrates that clinical trial manuscripts related to rofecoxib were authored by sponsor employees but often attributed first authorship to academically affiliated investigators who did not always disclose industry financial support.
Sartor, R. B. (2004). Pharmaceutical influence on clinical science and practice: A double-edged sword. Gastroenterology, 127(3), 703-704.
Available at: http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/PIIS0016508504013356/fulltext
Article discusses the benefits and drawbacks of pharmaceutical company involvement in clinical research.
Sharfstein, J. M., North, M., & Serwint, J. R. (2007). Over the counter but no longer under the radar–pediatric cough and cold medications. The New England Journal of Medicine, 357(23), 2321-2324.
Available at: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/23/2321
Article describes the OTC cold medicines and the efficacy of their use in the pediatric population, and brings up topics such as extrapolating efficacy from adults to children.
Sismondo, S. (2007). Ghost management: How much of the medical literature is shaped behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical industry? PLoS Medicine, 4(9), e286.
Available at: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040286
This is an essay addressing not only Ghost Writing, but the much broader topic of Ghost Managing. The article describes Ghost Management of medical research publishing as this: when pharmaceutical companies and their agents control or shape multiple steps in the research, analysis, writing, and publication of articles. Ghost writing and honorary authorship are not in and of themselves scientific problems, though they become so when they shape science to meet particular interests.
Smith, R. (2003). Medical journals and pharmaceutical companies: Uneasy bedfellows. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 326(7400), 1202-1205.
Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7400/1202
This is an editorial about the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and medical journals. It also contains a quick guide to corrupting science to promote drugs.
Smith, R. (2005). Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Medicine, 2(5), e138.
Available at: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020138
Discusses the pharmaceutical companies and their influence on journals.
Stern, J. M., & Simes, R. J. (1997). Publication bias: Evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 315(7109), 640-645.
Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7109/640
Delay in the publication of studies with negative results has been identified as an additional important factor in publication bias.
Tanne, J. H. (2007). FDA is failing to oversee human clinical trials, report says. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 335(7622), 691.
Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7622/691-b
Discusses the report published below about the small amount of inspections made by the FDA on clinical trials.
Lay Press Coverage also
Tong, E. K., & Glantz, S. A. (2007). Tobacco industry efforts undermining evidence linking secondhand smoke with cardiovascular disease. Circulation, 116(16), 1845-1854.
Available at: http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/116/16/1845
Discusses the tobacco industryâ€™s efforts to manipulate the scientific process.
Vaitkus, P. T., & Brar, C. (2007). N-acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: Publication bias perpetuated by meta-analyses. American Heart Journal, 153(2), 275-280.
Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002-8703(06)00974-4
Study found that the published manuscripts presented a treatment-effect estimate that was more optimistic than that found in unpublished abstracts. Performing a meta-analyses only made the bias worse.
Villanueva, P., Peiro, S., Librero, J., & Pereiro, I. (2003). Accuracy of pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals. Lancet, 361(9351), 27-32.
Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140-6736(03)12118-6
“Doctors should be cautious in assessment of advertisements that claim a drug has greater efficacy, safety, or convenience, even though these claims are accompanied by bibliographical references to randomised clinical trials published in reputable medical journals and seem to be evidence-based.”
Whittington, C. J., Kendall, T., Fonagy, P., Cottrell, D., Cotgrove, A., & Boddington, E. (2004). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: Systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet, 363(9418), 1341-1345.
Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140-6736(04)16043-1
“Published data suggest a favourable risk-benefit profile for some SSRIs; however, addition of unpublished data indicates that risks could outweigh benefits of these drugs to treat depression in children and young people…Non-publication of trials, for whatever reason, or the omission of important data from published trials, can lead to erroneous recommendations for treatment.”
Yank, V., Rennie, D., & Bero, L. A. (2007). Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: Retrospective cohort study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 335(7631), 1202-1205.
Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/335/7631/1202
“Meta-analyses on antihypertensive drugs and with financial ties to one drug company are not associated with favourable results but are associated with favourable conclusions.”