A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures

Aaron S. Kesselheim, Christopher T Robertson, Jessica A. Myers, Susannah L. Rose, Victoria Gillet, Kathryn M. Ross, Robert J. Glynn, Steven Joffe, Jerry Avorn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

116 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The effects of clinical-trial funding on the interpretation of trial results are poorly understood. We examined how such support affects physicians' reactions to trials with a high, medium, or low level of methodologic rigor. METHODS: We presented 503 board-certified internists with abstracts that we designed describing clinical trials of three hypothetical drugs. The trials had high, medium, or low methodologic rigor, and each report included one of three support disclosures: funding from a pharmaceutical company, NIH funding, or none. For both factors studied (rigor and funding), one of the three possible variations was randomly selected for inclusion in the abstracts. Follow-up questions assessed the physicians' impressions of the trials' rigor, their confidence in the results, and their willingness to prescribe the drugs. RESULTS: The 269 respondents (53.5% response rate) perceived the level of study rigor accurately. Physicians reported that they would be less willing to prescribe drugs tested in low-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008) and would be more willing to prescribe drugs tested in high-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.18 to 4.32; P<0.001). Disclosure of industry funding, as compared with no disclosure of funding, led physicians to downgrade the rigor of a trial (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P = 0.006), their confidence in the results (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98; P = 0.04), and their willingness to prescribe the hypothetical drugs (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.94; P = 0.02). Physicians were half as willing to prescribe drugs studied in industry-funded trials as they were to prescribe drugs studied in NIH-funded trials (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.71; P<0.001). These effects were consistent across all levels of methodologic rigor. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians discriminate among trials of varying degrees of rigor, but industry sponsorship negatively influences their perception of methodologic quality and reduces their willingness to believe and act on trial findings, independently of the trial's quality. These effects may influence the translation of clinical research into practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1119-1127
Number of pages9
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Volume367
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 20 2012

Fingerprint

Disclosure
Physicians
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Research
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Industry
Clinical Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Kesselheim, A. S., Robertson, C. T., Myers, J. A., Rose, S. L., Gillet, V., Ross, K. M., ... Avorn, J. (2012). A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures. New England Journal of Medicine, 367(12), 1119-1127. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1202397

A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures. / Kesselheim, Aaron S.; Robertson, Christopher T; Myers, Jessica A.; Rose, Susannah L.; Gillet, Victoria; Ross, Kathryn M.; Glynn, Robert J.; Joffe, Steven; Avorn, Jerry.

In: New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 367, No. 12, 20.09.2012, p. 1119-1127.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kesselheim, AS, Robertson, CT, Myers, JA, Rose, SL, Gillet, V, Ross, KM, Glynn, RJ, Joffe, S & Avorn, J 2012, 'A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures', New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 367, no. 12, pp. 1119-1127. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1202397
Kesselheim, Aaron S. ; Robertson, Christopher T ; Myers, Jessica A. ; Rose, Susannah L. ; Gillet, Victoria ; Ross, Kathryn M. ; Glynn, Robert J. ; Joffe, Steven ; Avorn, Jerry. / A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures. In: New England Journal of Medicine. 2012 ; Vol. 367, No. 12. pp. 1119-1127.
@article{df4177a2b9564b40a1d0224f7432c643,
title = "A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: The effects of clinical-trial funding on the interpretation of trial results are poorly understood. We examined how such support affects physicians' reactions to trials with a high, medium, or low level of methodologic rigor. METHODS: We presented 503 board-certified internists with abstracts that we designed describing clinical trials of three hypothetical drugs. The trials had high, medium, or low methodologic rigor, and each report included one of three support disclosures: funding from a pharmaceutical company, NIH funding, or none. For both factors studied (rigor and funding), one of the three possible variations was randomly selected for inclusion in the abstracts. Follow-up questions assessed the physicians' impressions of the trials' rigor, their confidence in the results, and their willingness to prescribe the drugs. RESULTS: The 269 respondents (53.5{\%} response rate) perceived the level of study rigor accurately. Physicians reported that they would be less willing to prescribe drugs tested in low-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 0.64; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008) and would be more willing to prescribe drugs tested in high-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 3.07; 95{\%} CI, 2.18 to 4.32; P<0.001). Disclosure of industry funding, as compared with no disclosure of funding, led physicians to downgrade the rigor of a trial (odds ratio, 0.63; 95{\%} CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P = 0.006), their confidence in the results (odds ratio, 0.71; 95{\%} CI, 0.51 to 0.98; P = 0.04), and their willingness to prescribe the hypothetical drugs (odds ratio, 0.68; 95{\%} CI, 0.49 to 0.94; P = 0.02). Physicians were half as willing to prescribe drugs studied in industry-funded trials as they were to prescribe drugs studied in NIH-funded trials (odds ratio, 0.52; 95{\%} CI, 0.37 to 0.71; P<0.001). These effects were consistent across all levels of methodologic rigor. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians discriminate among trials of varying degrees of rigor, but industry sponsorship negatively influences their perception of methodologic quality and reduces their willingness to believe and act on trial findings, independently of the trial's quality. These effects may influence the translation of clinical research into practice.",
author = "Kesselheim, {Aaron S.} and Robertson, {Christopher T} and Myers, {Jessica A.} and Rose, {Susannah L.} and Victoria Gillet and Ross, {Kathryn M.} and Glynn, {Robert J.} and Steven Joffe and Jerry Avorn",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1056/NEJMsa1202397",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "367",
pages = "1119--1127",
journal = "New England Journal of Medicine",
issn = "0028-4793",
publisher = "Massachussetts Medical Society",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures

AU - Kesselheim, Aaron S.

AU - Robertson, Christopher T

AU - Myers, Jessica A.

AU - Rose, Susannah L.

AU - Gillet, Victoria

AU - Ross, Kathryn M.

AU - Glynn, Robert J.

AU - Joffe, Steven

AU - Avorn, Jerry

PY - 2012/9/20

Y1 - 2012/9/20

N2 - BACKGROUND: The effects of clinical-trial funding on the interpretation of trial results are poorly understood. We examined how such support affects physicians' reactions to trials with a high, medium, or low level of methodologic rigor. METHODS: We presented 503 board-certified internists with abstracts that we designed describing clinical trials of three hypothetical drugs. The trials had high, medium, or low methodologic rigor, and each report included one of three support disclosures: funding from a pharmaceutical company, NIH funding, or none. For both factors studied (rigor and funding), one of the three possible variations was randomly selected for inclusion in the abstracts. Follow-up questions assessed the physicians' impressions of the trials' rigor, their confidence in the results, and their willingness to prescribe the drugs. RESULTS: The 269 respondents (53.5% response rate) perceived the level of study rigor accurately. Physicians reported that they would be less willing to prescribe drugs tested in low-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008) and would be more willing to prescribe drugs tested in high-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.18 to 4.32; P<0.001). Disclosure of industry funding, as compared with no disclosure of funding, led physicians to downgrade the rigor of a trial (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P = 0.006), their confidence in the results (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98; P = 0.04), and their willingness to prescribe the hypothetical drugs (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.94; P = 0.02). Physicians were half as willing to prescribe drugs studied in industry-funded trials as they were to prescribe drugs studied in NIH-funded trials (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.71; P<0.001). These effects were consistent across all levels of methodologic rigor. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians discriminate among trials of varying degrees of rigor, but industry sponsorship negatively influences their perception of methodologic quality and reduces their willingness to believe and act on trial findings, independently of the trial's quality. These effects may influence the translation of clinical research into practice.

AB - BACKGROUND: The effects of clinical-trial funding on the interpretation of trial results are poorly understood. We examined how such support affects physicians' reactions to trials with a high, medium, or low level of methodologic rigor. METHODS: We presented 503 board-certified internists with abstracts that we designed describing clinical trials of three hypothetical drugs. The trials had high, medium, or low methodologic rigor, and each report included one of three support disclosures: funding from a pharmaceutical company, NIH funding, or none. For both factors studied (rigor and funding), one of the three possible variations was randomly selected for inclusion in the abstracts. Follow-up questions assessed the physicians' impressions of the trials' rigor, their confidence in the results, and their willingness to prescribe the drugs. RESULTS: The 269 respondents (53.5% response rate) perceived the level of study rigor accurately. Physicians reported that they would be less willing to prescribe drugs tested in low-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008) and would be more willing to prescribe drugs tested in high-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.18 to 4.32; P<0.001). Disclosure of industry funding, as compared with no disclosure of funding, led physicians to downgrade the rigor of a trial (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P = 0.006), their confidence in the results (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98; P = 0.04), and their willingness to prescribe the hypothetical drugs (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.94; P = 0.02). Physicians were half as willing to prescribe drugs studied in industry-funded trials as they were to prescribe drugs studied in NIH-funded trials (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.71; P<0.001). These effects were consistent across all levels of methodologic rigor. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians discriminate among trials of varying degrees of rigor, but industry sponsorship negatively influences their perception of methodologic quality and reduces their willingness to believe and act on trial findings, independently of the trial's quality. These effects may influence the translation of clinical research into practice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866345932&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866345932&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1056/NEJMsa1202397

DO - 10.1056/NEJMsa1202397

M3 - Article

C2 - 22992075

AN - SCOPUS:84866345932

VL - 367

SP - 1119

EP - 1127

JO - New England Journal of Medicine

JF - New England Journal of Medicine

SN - 0028-4793

IS - 12

ER -