Virtual Library
Start Your Search
Silvio Matsas
Author of
-
+
P10 - Health Services Research/Health Economics - Health Economics (ID 122)
- Event: WCLC 2020
- Type: Posters
- Track: Health Services Research/Health Economics
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 1/28/2021, 00:00 - 00:00, ePoster Hall
-
+
P10.01 - Bias Comparison in Studies Funded by Industry and by Other Sources: An Analysis of Prospective Studies of the Last Five Years (ID 876)
00:00 - 00:00 | Presenting Author(s): Silvio Matsas
- Abstract
- Presentation
Introduction
Lung Cancer is one of the most prevalent types of Cancers in our times and is known for its low Overall survival in patients with some kind of lung cancer. The last decade presented a large number of studies on patients with Lung Cancer. Some of these were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, others were not. However, apart from the funding difference, these two groups of studies present features and criteria differences that may affect their reliabilities.
Methods
Two independent reviewers included 430 clinical trials on metastatic lung cancer published from 2012 to 2017 (251 funded by pharmaceutical industry and 179 funded by other sources). Then, we classified all prospective studies according to their risk of bias (selection bias for randomization, selection bias for allocation, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias and reporting bias) into High, Low or Unclear Risk. The primary endpoint of this study is to determine reliability differences between the two study groups based on the number of Clinical trials Registration and on transparency based on the performance bias or other risk of bias.
Results
We found that studies funded by industry were more commonly registered on Clinicaltrials.gov in comparison to studies funded by other sources (78% versus 37%; p < 0,01). The studies funded by industry also have a bigger transparency in relation to double blinding: 31% had low risk of performance bias, 18% had unclear risk and 52% had high risk. In comparison, articles funded by other sources, had 8%, 58% and 34%, respectively (p < 0,01). There was not statistically differences in terms of risk of other bias.
ConclusionRisk of bias
Type of bias
Low risk
Unclear risk
High risk
Randomization-funded by Industry (p = 0,09)
75%
4%
21%
Randomization- funded by other sources
65%
2%
33%
Allocation-funded by Industry (p = 0,65)
82%
1%
17%
Allocation- funded by other sources
80%
0%
20%
Performance- funded by Industry (p < 0,01)
30%
18%
52%
Performance- funded by other sources
8%
58%
34%
Detection bias- funded by Industry (p = 0,06)
16%
48%
36%
Detection bias- funded by other sources
22%
58%
20%
Attrition bias- funded by Industry (p = 0,43)
90%
4%
6%
Attrition bias- funded by other sources
95%
1%
4%
Reporting bias- funded by Industry (p = 0,83)
89%
3%
8%
Reporting bias- other sources
91%
1%
8%
Other bias- funded by Industry (p = 1,00)
100%
0%
0%
Other bias- funded by other sources
100%
0%
0%
Studies funded by industry were more commonly registered on Clinicaltrials.gov and were more enlightening on performance bias compared with studies funded by other sources. These findings may prompt future lung cancer studies funded by non-industry to strengthen their evidence.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
