|
From EurekAlert! - Breaking News:
Recent analyses have documented bias in pharmaceutical studies funded by industry.
Now, an analysis from Children's Hospital Boston finds a similar phenomenon in scientific articles about nutrition, particularly in studies of beverages.
The analysis -- the first systematic one performed on nutrition studies -- found that beverage studies funded solely by industry were four to eight times more likely to have conclusions favorable to sponsors' financial interest than were studies with no industry funding.
David Ludwig, MD, PhD, the study's senior author and director of the Optimal Weight for Life (OWL) program at Children's Hospital Boston, believes that bias in nutrition studies may have far greater effects than bias in pharmaceutical studies.
Not only do the findings of nutrition studies receive frequent media attention, but they influence governmental and professional dietary guidelines, the design of intervention programs, and FDA regulation of health claims on foods and beverages.
Another two investigators, who had no knowledge of the financial sponsors, and who were not told the article's author, title or journal of publication, classified the articles' conclusions as "favorable," "neutral" or "unfavorable."
A fourth investigator, who had no knowledge of the conclusions, determined the funding source (22 percent were funded entirely by industry, 47 percent had no industry funding, and 32 percent had mixed funding) and classified articles as to whether a favorable finding would be beneficial, negative or neutral to its funder's financial interests.
The study's first author was Lenard Lesser, MD, a Children's research assistant now in the Tufts University Family Medicine Residency.
More than 500 scientists, including eight members of the National Academy of Sciences, 11 members of the Institute of Medicine and 10 members of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute comprise Children's research community.
Read more from this post.
Posted on January 8, 2007 10:52 PM
|
