Table 2.
GRADE summary of findings: industry funding of patient groups
| Outcomes | Prevalence | No of participants (No of studies) | Quality of evidence (GRADE)* | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prevalence measures | ||||
| Industry funding | Population sample multiple disease: range 43-83%; population sample specific condition: range 20-75%; consultation: range 34-75% | 2150 (15) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low | Downgraded because of inconsistency |
| Transparency of funding on websites | 27% (95% CI 24% to 31%) | 642 (4) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate | No inconsistency; three of four studies of high quality; studies in four countries |
| Transparency of funding during consultations | 0% (CDC); 91% (FDA) | 31 (2) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low | Downgraded because of imprecision; divergent results mirror policies of agency holding consultation |
| Organisational policies governing sponsorship | Range 2-64% | 1294 (10) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low | Downgraded because of inconsistency; data collection and definitions differ |
| Organisational positions and industry funding | ||||
| Positions consistent with sponsors’ interests | Industry funded groups generally supported sponsors’ interests more often than non-funded groups | 37 (2) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low | Downgraded because of imprecision; one of two studies of low quality |
| Comprehensiveness of information on harm (mean No of harms, max=17) | Mean 10 items (standard deviation 4.2) for non-industry funded groups; mean 3.7 items (standard deviation 3.7) for industry funded groups; Mann-Whitney test non-significant: P=0.1 | 16 (1) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low | Downgraded because of imprecision; single study of low quality |
CDC=US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; FDA=US Food and Drug Administration; GRADE=grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation.
High quality: very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect; moderate quality: moderately confident in the effect estimate, and the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different; low quality: confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and the true effect could be substantially different from the estimate of the effect; very low quality: very little confidence in the effect estimate, and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.