↓ Skip to main content

Industry sponsorship and publication bias among animal studies evaluating the effects of statins on atherosclerosis and bone outcomes: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Industry sponsorship and publication bias among animal studies evaluating the effects of statins on atherosclerosis and bone outcomes: a meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0008-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew T Anglemyer, David Krauth, Lisa Bero

Abstract

The effect that sponsorship has on publication rates or overall effect estimates in animal studies is unclear, though methodological biases are prevalent in animal studies of statins and there may be differences in efficacy estimates between industry and non-industry sponsored studies. In the present analysis, we evaluated the impact of funding source on publication bias in animal studies estimating the effect of statins on atherosclerosis and bone outcomes. We conducted two independent systematic reviews and meta-analyses identifying animal studies evaluating the effect of statins on reducing the risk of atherosclerosis outcomes (n = 49) and increasing the likelihood of beneficial bone outcomes (n = 45). After stratifying the included studies within each systematic review by funding source, three separate analyses were employed to assess publication bias in these meta-analyses-funnel plots, Egger's Linear Regression, and the Trim and Fill methods. We found potential evidence of publication bias, primarily in non-industry sponsored studies. In all 3 assessments of publication bias, we found evidence of publication bias in non-industry sponsored studies, while in industry-sponsored studies publication bias was not evident in funnel plots and Egger's regression tests. We also found that inadequate reporting of sponsorship in animal studies is still exceedingly common. In meta-analyses assessing the effects of statins on atherosclerosis and bone outcomes in animal studies, we found evidence of publication bias, though small numbers of industry-sponsored studies limit the interpretation of the trim-and-fill results. This publication bias is more prominent in non-industry sponsored studies. Industry and non-industry funded researchers may have different incentives for publication. Industry may have a financial interest to publish all preclinical animal studies to maximize the success of subsequent trials in humans, whereas non-industry funded academics may prefer to publish high impact statistically significant results only. Differences in previously published effect estimates between industry- and non-industry sponsored animal studies may be partially explained by publication bias.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 29%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 5 21%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,268,139
of 17,356,510 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#194
of 1,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,142
of 222,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,356,510 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,610 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 222,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them