advertisement
Abstract #22757 Published in IGR 11-1
Discrepancy between Results and Abstract Conclusions in Industry- vs Nonindustry-funded Studies Comparing Topical Prostaglandins
Alasbali T; Smith M; Geffen N; Trope GE; Flanagan JG; Jin Y; Buys YMAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology 2009; 147: 33-38
PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between industry- vs nonindustry-funded publications comparing the efficacy of topical prostaglandin analogs by evaluating the correspondence between the statistical significance of the publication's main outcome measure and its abstract conclusions. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational cohort study. METHODS: English publications comparing the ocular hypotensive efficacy between any or all of latanoprost, travoprost, and bimatoprost were searched from the MEDLINE database. Each article was reviewed by three independent observers and was evaluated for source of funding, study quality, statistically significant main outcome measure, correspondence between results of main outcome measure and abstract conclusion, number of intraocular pressure outcomes compared, and journal impact factor. Funding was determined by published disclosure or, in cases of no documented disclosure, the corresponding author was contacted directly to confirm industry funding. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The main outcome measure was correspondence between abstract conclusion and reported statistical significance of the publications' main outcome measure. RESULTS: Thirty-nine publications were included, of which 29 were industry funded and 10 were nonindustry funded. The published abstract conclusion was not consistent with the results of the main outcome measure in 18 (62%) of 29 of the industry-funded studies compared with zero (0%) of 10 of the nonindustry-funded studies (P = .0006). Twenty-six (90%) of the industry-funded studies had proindustry abstract conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-four percent of the industry-funded publications had a statistically significant main outcome measure; however, 90% of the industry-funded studies had proindustry abstract conclusions. Both readers and reviewers should scrutinize publications carefully to ensure that data support the authors' conclusions.
Dr. Y.M. Buys, Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ont., Canada. Y.buys@utoronto.ca
