IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v32y2012i2p237-245.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sponsorship-Related Outcome Selection Bias in Published Economic Studies of Triptans

Author

Listed:
  • Piia K. Peura
  • Janne A. Martikainen
  • Timo T. Purmonen
  • Juha H. O. Turunen

Abstract

Background . Economic studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry are more likely to report favorable results and recommendations for the sponsor’s product than are studies funded by nonindustry establishments. Purpose . To determine whether clinical outcome data obtained from the same meta-analyses are used differently in various economic studies of oral triptans and whether there is an association between the study sponsorship and the choice of clinical outcome measure. Data Sources . Economic studies of triptans were identified by updating a previously published systematic review. Study Selection . Twelve studies that used the same meta-analyses as the source of clinical outcome data were identified. Data Extraction . Two independent reviewers extracted the essential data from the identified studies. Data Synthesis . In the 12 appraised studies, 9 alternative measures of effectiveness were derived from the same meta-analyses. Eleven studies were industry-related, and in these the selected clinical outcome consistently favored the sponsor’s product. Also the reported results suggested that the sponsor’s product was more cost-effective than the competitors’ products. Limitations . The cost-effectiveness of triptans is dependent on both the definition of clinical effectiveness and the treatment-related costs. Only bias related to the selection of the clinical outcome measure has been taken into account in this review. Conclusions . The results of published economic studies of triptans are conflicting and biased. There is a tendency to select clinical outcome measures that support the sponsor’s product. This leads to concern about the possible poor applicability of these results in decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Piia K. Peura & Janne A. Martikainen & Timo T. Purmonen & Juha H. O. Turunen, 2012. "Sponsorship-Related Outcome Selection Bias in Published Economic Studies of Triptans," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(2), pages 237-245, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:2:p:237-245
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11403834
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X11403834
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X11403834?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. L. Hutton & Paula R. Williamson, 2000. "Bias in meta‐analysis due to outcome variable selection within studies," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 49(3), pages 359-370.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ferrán Catalá-López & Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno & Manuel Ridao & Salvador Peiró, 2013. "When Are Statins Cost-Effective in Cardiovascular Prevention? A Systematic Review of Sponsorship Bias and Conclusions in Economic Evaluations of Statins," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-1, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nikolaos Pandis & Padhraig S Fleming & Helen Worthington & Kerry Dwan & Georgia Salanti, 2015. "Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    2. Wynanda A van Enst & Rob J P M Scholten & Lotty Hooft, 2012. "Identification of Additional Trials in Prospective Trial Registers for Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-5, August.
    3. Peter M. Fayers & David J. Hand, 2002. "Causal variables, indicator variables and measurement scales: an example from quality of life," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 165(2), pages 233-253, June.
    4. Jing Wang & Qiguo Zhang & Rongfu Zhou & Bing Chen & Jian Ouyang, 2012. "High-Dose Chemotherapy Followed by Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation as a First-Line Therapy for High-Risk Primary Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-8, March.
    5. Dan Jackson & John Copas & Alex J. Sutton, 2005. "Modelling reporting bias: the operative mortality rate for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(4), pages 737-752, November.
    6. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    7. Salandra, Rossella, 2018. "Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1215-1228.
    8. Alex Eble & Peter Boone & Diana Elbourne, 2017. "On Minimizing the Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Economics," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 31(3), pages 687-707.
    9. Jamie J Kirkham & Doug G Altman & Paula R Williamson, 2010. "Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-5, March.
    10. Kerry Dwan & Douglas G Altman & Juan A Arnaiz & Jill Bloom & An-Wen Chan & Eugenia Cronin & Evelyne Decullier & Philippa J Easterbrook & Erik Von Elm & Carrol Gamble & Davina Ghersi & John P A Ioannid, 2008. "Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(8), pages 1-31, August.
    11. D. J. Bartholomew, 2002. "Discussion on the paper by Fayers and Hand," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 165(2), pages 253-261, June.
    12. Megan L Head & Luke Holman & Rob Lanfear & Andrew T Kahn & Michael D Jennions, 2015. "The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    13. Peter Boone & Alex Eble & Diana Elbourne, 2013. "Risk and Evidence of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Economics," CEP Discussion Papers dp1240, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:2:p:237-245. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.