Antipsychotics in Adults With Schizophrenia: Does Sponsorship of Research Articles Affect the Findings?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Letters5 March 2013Antipsychotics in Adults With Schizophrenia: Does Sponsorship of Research Articles Affect the Findings?Lisa Hartling, PhD, Amanda S. Newton, RN, PhD, and Serdar Dursun, MD, PhDLisa Hartling, PhDFrom University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Search for more papers by this author, Amanda S. Newton, RN, PhDFrom University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Search for more papers by this author, and Serdar Dursun, MD, PhDFrom University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-5-201303050-00015 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail IN RESPONSE:A strong body of evidence supports Dr. Finucane's observation that sponsorship of research articles has been shown to affect reported results. In particular, evidence shows that industry-sponsored studies may give results that support the industry's product (1). An important task for systematic reviewers is to explore variables that may affect the validity of the reported results, including the source of funding.In our systematic review, we found that 70% of the included studies were industry-funded. We also noted that funding source was not disclosed for 19% of studies. We discussed that the choice of medication comparisons, dosages, and ...References1. Sismondo S. Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008;29:109-13. [PMID: 17919992] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Abou-Setta AM, Mousavi SS, Spooner C, Schouten JR, Pasichnyk D, Armijo-Olivo S, et al. First-Generation Versus Second-Generation Antipsychotics in Adults: Comparative Effectiveness. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012. Accessed at http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productid=1054 on 25 January 2013. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Lisa Hartling, PhD; Amanda S. Newton, RN, PhD; Serdar Dursun, MD, PhDAffiliations: From University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Disclosures: Disclosures can be found at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M12-0362. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoAntipsychotics in Adults With Schizophrenia: Comparative Effectiveness of First-Generation Versus Second-Generation Medications Lisa Hartling , Ahmed M. Abou-Setta , Serdar Dursun , Shima S. Mousavi , Dion Pasichnyk , and Amanda S. Newton Antipsychotics in Adults With Schizophrenia: Does Sponsorship of Research Articles Affect the Findings? Thomas E. Finucane Metrics 5 March 2013Volume 158, Issue 5_Part_1 Page: 362 Keywords Antipsychotics Conflicts of interest Disclosure Forecasting Population statistics Schizophrenia Systematic reviews ePublished: 5 March 2013 Issue Published: 5 March 2013 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2013 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.179 | 0.693 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".