Lesser, L. et al.
Source: PLOS Medicine
support of biomedical research may bias scientific conclusions, as
demonstrated by recent analyses of pharmaceutical studies. However, this
issue has not been systematically examined in the area of nutrition
research. The purpose of this study is to characterize financial
sponsorship of scientific articles addressing the health effects of
three commonly consumed beverages, and to determine how sponsorship
affects published conclusions.
Methods and Findings: Medline searches of worldwide literature were used to identify three
article types (interventional studies, observational studies, and
scientific reviews) about soft drinks, juice, and milk published between
1 January, 1999 and 31 December, 2003. Financial sponsorship and
article conclusions were classified by independent groups of
coinvestigators. The relationship between sponsorship and conclusions
was explored by exact tests and regression analyses, controlling for
covariates. 206 articles were included in the study, of which 111
declared financial sponsorship. Of these, 22% had all industry funding,
47% had no industry funding, and 32% had mixed funding. Funding source
was significantly related to conclusions when considering all article
types (p = 0.037). For interventional studies, the proportion
with unfavorable conclusions was 0% for all industry funding versus 37%
for no industry funding (p = 0.009). The odds ratio of a
favorable versus unfavorable conclusion was 7.61 (95% confidence
interval 1.27 to 45.73), comparing articles with all industry funding to
no industry funding.
funding of nutrition-related scientific articles may bias conclusions
in favor of sponsors' products, with potentially significant
implications for public health.
Click to view entire study.