 Some Salt with Your Statin, Professor?Malcolm Macleod PLOS Biology, 2014, vol. 12, issue 1, 1-3 Abstract: In this primer, Malcolm Macleod outlines the use of meta-analysis to assess the validity of the outcome reported for preclinical studies and explores the reasons why Lisa Bero and colleagues find that industry-funded studies show smaller effect sizes than non-industry-funded studies do.We know that clinical trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry are likely to exaggerate benefit and minimise harms. But do these biases extend to their sponsorship of non-human animal research? Using systematic review and meta-analysis Bero and colleagues show that, in the case of statins, things are a little more complicated. While the conclusions of industry-sponsored studies were indeed more enthusiastic than warranted by their data, the data themselves painted a picture more conservative than was seen in non-industry-sponsored studies. This behaviour is consistent with maximising the return on investment, seeking robust data before embarking on a clinical trial, and, once that investment has been made, making every effort to “prove” that the drug is safe and effective if this is at all credible. The findings suggest that there is something different about industry-sponsored non-human animal research, perhaps reflecting higher standards than is the case elsewhere. Perhaps the academic community can learn something from our colleagues in the commercial sector. Date: 2014 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pbio00:1001768 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001768 Access Statistics for this article More articles in PLOS Biology from Public Library of Science |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.