Funding and Conflicts of Interest in Health Research
What a Cochrane review found about industry-sponsored studies and favorable results, what funding does and does not prove, and how to read disclosures in health research.
Content last updated . This page has not been medically reviewed.
What the best-known review found
A Cochrane methodology review (2017 update) pooled 75 papers that compared drug or device studies sponsored by the manufacturer with studies that had other sponsors. [1]| Measure | Finding for industry-sponsored studies | Certainty |
|---|---|---|
| Favorable efficacy results | More often favorable; risk ratio 1.27 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.37), 25 papers | Moderate [1] |
| Favorable conclusions | More often favorable; risk ratio 1.34 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.51), 29 papers | Low [1] |
| Harms results | Similar; risk ratio 1.37 (95% CI 0.64 to 2.93), 4 papers | Very low [1] |
Other details from the review:
- Standard risk-of-bias checks (sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up, selective outcome reporting) did not differ between industry and non-industry studies. Industry studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding. [1]
- Industry studies had less agreement between their results and their conclusions. [1]
- The authors concluded there is an industry bias "that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments." [1]
This review covers drug and medical device studies. It does not measure bias in supplement, wellness-device or clinic-marketing research, and it describes a tendency across many studies, not what any one study did.
What it does not mean
- Industry funding does not automatically make a trial invalid. The review found sponsored studies were not weaker on several standard design checks. [1]
- Non-industry funding is not automatically neutral. Academic, advocacy and personal interests also exist.
- A disclosure statement is information, not a guarantee. Look at how conclusions fit the data.
Where to look and what to ask
- Funding and sponsor statements, and author disclosures, in the paper.
- Whether the sponsor makes or sells the product studied.
- Whether outcomes were chosen in advance and whether all of them are reported (registered trials make this easier to check: how to find emerging research and trial records).
- Whether independent trials or pooled reviews reach the same conclusion: systematic reviews and meta-analyses explained.
- Whether the press release or ad goes beyond the paper: research hype and press releases.
Frequently asked questions
Does industry funding mean a study is biased?
Not necessarily, but across 75 papers, industry-sponsored drug and device studies more often reported favorable efficacy results and conclusions. [1]
Did sponsored studies show fewer harms?
The review found similar harms results, but the certainty was very low, based on four papers. [1]
Does the review apply to supplements?
It examined drug and device studies, so it cannot be applied directly to supplements, clinics or wellness gadgets.
What should I do with this?
Use funding as one clue alongside design, size and replication. For personal decisions, discuss evidence with a clinician: talking with a health professional.
More details: evidence, limits and cautions
The details behind this page: cautions, limits of the evidence and where sources disagree. Open any note to read it.