Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sponsorship of research and education occurs commonly in the pharmaceutical, medical device, and food and drink industries. This sponsorship is a conflict of interest, creating a situation where there may be bias in favour of the sponsors' interests. General practitioners (GPs) need to be aware of potential conflicts of interest in industry-sponsored research and education. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to alert GPs to the risk of bias in research and education funded by for-profit organisations, and to provide strategies to avoid being influenced by information that may be biased. DISCUSSION: Types of bias known to be associated with industry sponsorship include: methodological bias, where there is a systematic error in the design, conduct or analysis of the study such that it deviates from the truth; agenda bias, where study topics align with increased use of industry products; publication and reporting bias, where unfavourable studies or results are suppressed or omitted; and marketing bias, where supportive evidence is preferentially disseminated and sympathetic opinion leaders are given a broad platform. Industry influence can be reduced by seeking out independent reviews and avoiding industry-funded educational events.
Cite
CITATION STYLE
Parker, L., Grundy, Q., & Bero, L. (2018). Interpreting evidence in general practice: Bias and conflicts of interest. Australian Journal of General Practice, 47(6), 337–340. https://doi.org/10.31128/AJGP-12-17-4432
Register to see more suggestions
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.