Citation

Ahmer S, Haider II, Anderson D, Arya P. Pak. J. Med. Sci. Q. 2006; 22(3): 338-346.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, Professional Medical Publications)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Many studies have shown that there is an association between a positive outcome of clinical trials, economic analyses and systematic reviews, and funding by the manufacturer of the drug of interest. Selective reporting of clinical trial data has been suggested as one of the possible explanations of this so-called funding bias. We conducted a review of the literature to find out if there is any evidence that this selective reporting of clinical trial data occurs. We report the several systematic reviews and cross-sectional surveys, and many case studies of this phenomenon that we found in the medical literature. We searched Medline, Embase and PsycINFO databases for this study besides hand searching BMJ from January 2003 to November 2005. We included systematic reviews, cross-sectional surveys, letters, editorials, comments or news items that referred to actual incidences of withholding, suppression, selective release or selective publication of clinical trial data by pharmaceutical companies.

Language: en

Keywords

human; systematic review; MEDLINE; depression; suicide attempt; clinical trial; review; data base; law suit; citalopram; drug induced disease; fluoxetine; paroxetine; serotonin uptake inhibitor; sertraline; venlafaxine; thrombocytopenia; gastrointestinal symptom; heart infarction; acetylsalicylic acid; health survey; Clinical Trials; drug industry; medical research; nonsteroid antiinflammatory agent; drug fatality; meta analysis; disease exacerbation; naproxen; cardiovascular disease; oseltamivir; scientific literature; ibuprofen; Human immunodeficiency virus vaccine; celecoxib; digestive system ulcer; gastrointestinal toxicity; diclofenac; beta interferon; sialidase inhibitor; ranitidine; rofecoxib; outcome assessment; alteplase; amrinone; deferiprone; Funding bias; isradipine; levothyroxine sodium; prostaglandin; Selective reporting; Systemic reviews