The effects of industry funding and positive outcomes in the interpretation of clinical trial results: a randomized trial among Dutch psychiatrists
Abstract Background Most studies are inclined to report positive rather than negative or inconclusive results. It is currently unknown how clinicians appraise the results of a randomized clinical trial. For example, how does the study funding source influence the appraisal of an RCT, and do positive findings influence perceived credibility and clinical relevance? This study investigates whether psychiatrists’ appraisal of a scientific abstract is influenced by industry funding disclosures and a positive outcome. Methods Dutch psychiatrists were randomized to evaluate a scientific abstract desc... Mehr ...
Verfasser: | |
---|---|
Dokumenttyp: | Artikel |
Erscheinungsdatum: | 2019 |
Reihe/Periodikum: | BMC Medical Ethics, Vol 20, Iss 1, Pp 1-8 (2019) |
Verlag/Hrsg.: |
BMC
|
Schlagwörter: | Industry funding / Conflict of interest / Positive outcome bias / Credibility / Industry funding disclosure / Psychiatrists / Medical philosophy. Medical ethics / R723-726 |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Permalink: | https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27019129 |
Datenquelle: | BASE; Originalkatalog |
Powered By: | BASE |
Link(s) : | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0405-7 |