Conflict of interest in cancer studies

---

---

---

Nearly one-third of cancer research published in high-impact journals disclosed a conflict of interest, as per a newly released study from scientists at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The most frequent type of conflict was industry funding of the study, which was seen in 17 percent of papers. Twelve percent of papers had a study author who was an industry employee. Randomized trials with reported conflicts of interest were more likely to have positive findings.

"Given the frequency we observed for conflicts of interest and the fact that conflicts were linked to study outcomes, I would suggest that merely disclosing conflicts is probably not enough. It's becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties," says study author Reshma Jagsi, M.D., D.Phil., assistant professor of radiation oncology at the U-M Medical School.

The scientists looked at 1,534 cancer research studies published in prominent journals. Results of this current study appear online in the journal Cancer
"A serious concern is individuals with conflicts of interest will either consciously or unconsciously be biased in their analyses. As researchers, we have an obligation to treat the data objectively and in an unbiased fashion. There appears to be some relationships that compromise a researcher's ability to do that," Jagsi says.

For example, she says, scientists might design industry-funded studies in a way that's more likely to produce favorable results. They might also be more likely to publish positive outcomes than negative outcomes.

"In light of these findings, we as a society may wish to rethink how we want our research efforts to be funded and directed. It has been very hard to secure research funding, particularly in recent years, so it's been only natural for scientists to turn to industry. If we wish to minimize the potential for bias, we need to increase other sources of support. Medical research is ultimately a common endeavor that benefits all of society, so it seems only appropriate that we should be funding it through general revenues rather than expecting the market to provide," Jagsi says.


Posted by: Janet    Source