Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine
Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard form of evidence for assessing treatment efficacy, but many factors can influence their reliability including methodological quality, reporting quality and funding source. The aim of this study was to examine the relat...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/48212/ |
| _version_ | 1848797715608109056 |
|---|---|
| author | Wareham, Kathryn Hyde, Robert Grindlay, Douglas J.C. Brennan, Marnie L. Dean, Rachel S. |
| author_facet | Wareham, Kathryn Hyde, Robert Grindlay, Douglas J.C. Brennan, Marnie L. Dean, Rachel S. |
| author_sort | Wareham, Kathryn |
| building | Nottingham Research Data Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard form of evidence for assessing treatment efficacy, but many factors can influence their reliability including methodological quality, reporting quality and funding source.
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between funding source and positive outcome reporting in veterinary RCTs published in 2011 and to assess the risk of bias in the RCTs identified.
Methods: A structured search of PubMed was used to identify feline, canine, equine, bovine and ovine clinical trials examining the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions published in 2011. Funding source and outcomes were extracted from each RCT and an assessment of risk of bias made using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
Results: Literature searches returned 972 papers, with 86 papers (comprising 126 individual RCTs) included in the analysis. There was found to be a significantly higher proportion of positive outcomes reported in the pharmaceutical funding group (P) compared to the non-pharmaceutical (NP) and ‘no funding source stated’ (NF) groups (P = 56.9%, NP = 34.9%, NF = 29.1%, p < 0.05). A high proportion of trials had an unclear risk of bias across the five criteria examined.
Conclusions: We found evidence that veterinary RCTs were more likely to report positive outcomes if they have pharmaceutical industry funding or involvement. Consistently poor reporting of trials, including non-identification of funding source, was found which hinders the use of the available evidence. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T20:08:17Z |
| format | Article |
| id | nottingham-48212 |
| institution | University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T20:08:17Z |
| publishDate | 2017 |
| publisher | BioMed Central |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | nottingham-482122020-05-04T19:00:37Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/48212/ Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine Wareham, Kathryn Hyde, Robert Grindlay, Douglas J.C. Brennan, Marnie L. Dean, Rachel S. Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard form of evidence for assessing treatment efficacy, but many factors can influence their reliability including methodological quality, reporting quality and funding source. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between funding source and positive outcome reporting in veterinary RCTs published in 2011 and to assess the risk of bias in the RCTs identified. Methods: A structured search of PubMed was used to identify feline, canine, equine, bovine and ovine clinical trials examining the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions published in 2011. Funding source and outcomes were extracted from each RCT and an assessment of risk of bias made using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: Literature searches returned 972 papers, with 86 papers (comprising 126 individual RCTs) included in the analysis. There was found to be a significantly higher proportion of positive outcomes reported in the pharmaceutical funding group (P) compared to the non-pharmaceutical (NP) and ‘no funding source stated’ (NF) groups (P = 56.9%, NP = 34.9%, NF = 29.1%, p < 0.05). A high proportion of trials had an unclear risk of bias across the five criteria examined. Conclusions: We found evidence that veterinary RCTs were more likely to report positive outcomes if they have pharmaceutical industry funding or involvement. Consistently poor reporting of trials, including non-identification of funding source, was found which hinders the use of the available evidence. BioMed Central 2017-08-14 Article PeerReviewed Wareham, Kathryn, Hyde, Robert, Grindlay, Douglas J.C., Brennan, Marnie L. and Dean, Rachel S. (2017) Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine. BMC Veterinary Research, 13 (234). pp. 1-10. ISSN 1746-6148 Clinical trials Study design and data analysis Evidence based medicine Risk of bias https://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12917-017-1146-9 doi:10.1186/s12917-017-1146-9 doi:10.1186/s12917-017-1146-9 |
| spellingShingle | Clinical trials Study design and data analysis Evidence based medicine Risk of bias Wareham, Kathryn Hyde, Robert Grindlay, Douglas J.C. Brennan, Marnie L. Dean, Rachel S. Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine |
| title | Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine |
| title_full | Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine |
| title_fullStr | Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine |
| title_full_unstemmed | Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine |
| title_short | Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine |
| title_sort | sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine |
| topic | Clinical trials Study design and data analysis Evidence based medicine Risk of bias |
| url | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/48212/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/48212/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/48212/ |