Characteristics of funding of clinical trials: cross-sectional survey and proposed guidance.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a detailed and current characterisation of funding of a representative sample clinical trials. We also aimed to develop guidance for standardised reporting of funding information. METHODS: We addressed the extent to which clinical trials published in 2015 in any of the 119 Core Clinical Journals included a statement on the funding source (eg, whether a not-for-profit organisation was supported by a private-for-profit organisation), type of funding, amount and role of funder. We used a stepwise approach to develop a guidance and an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information. RESULTS: Of 200 trials, 178 (89%) included a funding statement, of which 171 (96%) reported being funded. Funding statements in the 171 funded trials indicated the source in 100%, amount in 1% and roles of funders in 50%. The most frequent sources were governmental (58%) and private-for-profit (40%). Of 54 funding statements in which the source was a not-for-profit organisation, we found evidence of undisclosed support of those from private-for-profit organisation(s) in 26 (48%). The most frequently reported roles of funders in the 171 funded trials related to study design (42%) and data analysis, interpretation or management (41%). Of 139 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing pharmacological or surgical interventions, 29 (21%) reported information on the supplier of the medication or device. The proposed guidance addresses both the funding information that RCTs should report and the reporting process. Attached to the guidance is a fillable PDF document for use as an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information. CONCLUSION: Although the majority of RCTs report funding, there is considerable variability in the reporting of funding source, amount and roles of funders. A standardised approach to reporting of funding information would address these limitations. Future research should explore the implications of funding by not-for-profit organisations that are supported by for-profit organisations.

Authors of clinical trials reported individual and financial conflicts of interest more frequently than institutional and nonfinancial ones: a methodological survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Conflicts of interest (COIs) are increasingly recognized as important to disclose and manage in health research. The objective of this study was to assess the reporting of both financial and nonfinancial COI by authors of randomized controlled trials published in a representative sample of clinical journals. METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline and included a random sample of 200 randomized controlled trials published in 2015 in one of the 119 Core Clinical Journals. We classified COI using a comprehensive framework that includes the following: individual COIs (financial, professional, scholarly, advocatory, personal) and institutional COIs (financial, professional, scholarly, and advocatory). We conducted descriptive and regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 200 randomized controlled trials, 188 (94%) reported authors' COI disclosures that were available in the main document (92%) and as International Committee of Medical Journal Editors forms accessible online (12%). Of the 188 trials, 57% had at least one author reporting at least one COI; in all these trials, at least one author reported financial COI. Institutional COIs (11%) and nonfinancial COIs (4%) were less commonly reported. References to COI disclosure statements for editors (1%) and medical writers (0%) were seldom present. Regression analyses showed positive associations between reporting individual financial COI and higher journal impact factor (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.10), larger number of authors (OR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.20), affiliation with an institution from a high-income country (OR = 16.75, 95% CI 3.38-82.87), and trials reporting on pharmacological interventions (OR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.13-4.62). CONCLUSION: More than half of published randomized controlled trials report that at least one author has a COI. Trial authors report financial COIs more often than nonfinancial COIs and individual COIs more frequently than institutional COIs.

Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest may bias the findings of systematic reviews. The objective of this methodological survey was to assess the frequency and different types of conflicts of interest that authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews report. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Ovid MEDLINE (limited to the 119 Core Clinical Journals and the year 2015). We defined a conflict of interest disclosure as the reporting of whether a conflict of interest exists or not, and used a framework to classify conflicts of interest into individual (financial, professional and intellectual) and institutional (financial and advocatory) conflicts of interest. We conducted descriptive and regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 200 systematic reviews, 194 (97%) reported authors' conflicts of interest disclosures, typically in the main document, and in a few cases either online (2%) or on request (5%). Of the 194 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, 49% and 33%, respectively, had at least one author reporting any type of conflict of interest (p=0.023). Institutional conflicts of interest were less frequently reported than individual conflicts of interest, and Cochrane reviews were more likely to report individual intellectual conflicts of interest compared with non-Cochrane reviews (19% and 5%, respectively, p=0.004). Regression analyses showed a positive association between reporting of conflicts of interest (at least one type of conflict of interest, individual financial conflict of interest, institutional financial conflict of interest) and journal impact factor and between reporting individual financial conflicts of interest and pharmacological versus non-pharmacological intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Although close to half of the published systematic reviews report that authors (typically many) have conflicts of interest, more than half report that they do not. Authors reported individual conflicts of interest more frequently than institutional and non-financial conflicts of interest.