IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v66y2008i9p1909-1914.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: Causal structures and responses

Author

Listed:
  • Sismondo, Sergio

Abstract

Three recent systematic reviews have shown that pharmaceutical industry funding of clinical trials is strongly associated with pro-industry results. This article builds on those analyses, situating funding's effects in the context of the ghost-management of research and publication by pharmaceutical companies, and the creation of social ties between those companies and researchers. There are multiple demonstrated causes of the association of funding and results, ranging from trial design bias to publication bias; these are all rooted in close contact between pharmaceutical companies and much clinical research. Given these points, most proposed measures to respond to this bias are too piecemeal to be adequate.

Suggested Citation

  • Sismondo, Sergio, 2008. "How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: Causal structures and responses," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1909-1914, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:66:y:2008:i:9:p:1909-1914
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(08)00036-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daylian M. Cain & George Loewenstein & Don A. Moore, 2005. "The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 1-25, January.
    2. De Vries, Raymond & Lemmens, Trudo, 2006. "The social and cultural shaping of medical evidence: Case studies from pharmaceutical research and obstetric science," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2694-2706, June.
    3. Mather, Charles, 2005. "The pipeline and the porcupine: alternate metaphors of the physician-industry relationship," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 1323-1334, March.
    4. Tim Hubbard & James Love, 2004. "A New Trade Framework for Global Healthcare R&D," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(2), pages 1-1, February.
    5. Van Trigt, Anke M. & De Jong-Van Den Berg, Lolkje T. W. & Voogt, Linda M. & Willems, Jaap & T.Dirk Tromp, F. J. & Haaijer-Ruskamp, Flora M., 1995. "Setting the agenda: Does the medical literature set the agenda for articles about medicines in the newspapers?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 893-899, September.
    6. Peter C Gøtzsche & Asbjørn Hróbjartsson & Helle Krogh Johansen & Mette T Haahr & Douglas G Altman & An-Wen Chan, 2007. "Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(1), pages 1-6, January.
    7. Sergio Sismondo, 2007. "Ghost Management: How Much of the Medical Literature Is Shaped Behind the Scenes by the Pharmaceutical Industry?," Working Papers id:1254, eSocialSciences.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gérard Mondello, 2020. "Building Belief Systems and Medical Ethics: The Covid-19 Controversies," GREDEG Working Papers 2020-35, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    2. S Scott Graham & Zoltan P Majdik & Dave Clark & Molly M Kessler & Tristin Brynn Hooker, 2020. "Relationships among commercial practices and author conflicts of interest in biomedical publishing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-11, July.
    3. Gabe, Jonathan & Chamberlain, Kerry & Norris, Pauline & Dew, Kevin & Madden, Helen & Hodgetts, Darrin, 2012. "The debate about the funding of Herceptin: A case study of ‘countervailing powers’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2353-2361.
    4. Naci, Huseyin & Cooper, Jacob & Mossialos, Elias, 2015. "Timely publication and sharing of trial data: opportunities and challenges for comparative effectiveness research in cardiovascular disease," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 63797, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Unruh, Lynn & Rice, Thomas & Rosenau, Pauline Vaillancourt & Barnes, Andrew J., 2016. "The 2013 cholesterol guideline controversy: Would better evidence prevent pharmaceuticalization?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(7), pages 797-808.
    6. Ozieranski, Piotr & McKee, Martin & King, Lawrence, 2012. "The politics of health technology assessment in Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 178-193.
    7. Jared L. Peifer & David R. Johnson & Elaine Howard Ecklund, 2021. "Is the Market Perceived to be Civilizing or Destructive? Scientists’ Universalism Values and Their Attitudes Towards Patents," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(2), pages 253-267, May.
    8. Padamsee, Tasleem Juana, 2011. "The pharmaceutical corporation and the 'good work' of managing women's bodies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1342-1350, April.
    9. Timmermans, Stefan & McKay, Tara, 2009. "Clinical trials as treatment option: Bioethics and health care disparities in substance dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1784-1790, December.
    10. Elise M. R. Smith & Stephen Molldrem & Jeffrey S. Farroni & Emma Tumilty, 2024. "Articulating the social responsibilities of translational science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    11. Lexchin, Joel & O'Donovan, Orla, 2010. "Prohibiting or 'managing' conflict of interest? A review of policies and procedures in three European drug regulation agencies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 643-647, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. S Scott Graham & Zoltan P Majdik & Dave Clark & Molly M Kessler & Tristin Brynn Hooker, 2020. "Relationships among commercial practices and author conflicts of interest in biomedical publishing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-11, July.
    2. Unruh, Lynn & Rice, Thomas & Rosenau, Pauline Vaillancourt & Barnes, Andrew J., 2016. "The 2013 cholesterol guideline controversy: Would better evidence prevent pharmaceuticalization?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(7), pages 797-808.
    3. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    4. Muel Kaptein, 2023. "A Paradox of Ethics: Why People in Good Organizations do Bad Things," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 297-316, April.
    5. Ek, Claes, 2017. "Some causes are more equal than others? The effect of similarity on substitution in charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 45-62.
    6. Perrotta, Manuela & Geampana, Alina, 2020. "The trouble with IVF and randomised control trials: Professional legitimation narratives on time-lapse imaging and evidence-informed care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    7. Lamar Pierce & Jason Snyder, 2015. "Unethical Demand and Employee Turnover," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(4), pages 853-869, November.
    8. Danilov, Anastasia & Biemann, Torsten & Kring, Thorn & Sliwka, Dirk, 2013. "The dark side of team incentives: Experimental evidence on advice quality from financial service professionals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 266-272.
    9. Katherine Cullerton & Jean Adams & Oliver Francis & Nita Forouhi & Martin White, 2019. "Building consensus on interactions between population health researchers and the food industry: Two-stage, online, international Delphi study and stakeholder survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    10. Kriss, Peter H. & Nagel, Rosemarie & Weber, Roberto A., 2013. "Implicit vs. explicit deception in ultimatum games with incomplete information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 337-346.
    11. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    12. Roy H Perlis & Clifford S Perlis, 2016. "Physician Payments from Industry Are Associated with Greater Medicare Part D Prescribing Costs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-12, May.
    13. Lucas C. Coffman & Alexander Gotthard-Real, 2019. "Moral Perceptions of Advised Actions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3904-3927, August.
    14. Kartal, Melis & Tremewan, James, 2018. "An offer you can refuse: The effect of transparency with endogenous conflict of interest," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 44-55.
    15. Ismayilov, Huseyn & Potters, Jan, 2013. "Disclosing advisor's interests neither hurts nor helps," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 314-320.
    16. Effron, Daniel A. & Raj, Medha, 2021. "Disclosing interpersonal conflicts of interest: Revealing whom we like, but not whom we dislike," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 68-85.
    17. Kirmayer, Laurence J., 2012. "Cultural competence and evidence-based practice in mental health: Epistemic communities and the politics of pluralism," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 249-256.
    18. Deversi, Marvin & Ispano, Alessandro & Schwardmann, Peter, 2021. "Spin doctors: An experiment on vague disclosure," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    19. Rebitzer, James B. & Taylor, Lowell J., 2011. "Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motives: Standard and Behavioral Approaches to Agency and Labor Markets," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 8, pages 701-772, Elsevier.
    20. Bazerman, Max H. & Sezer, Ovul, 2016. "Bounded awareness: Implications for ethical decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 95-105.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:66:y:2008:i:9:p:1909-1914. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.