Ackerley 2009.

Study characteristics
Methods	To analyse whether advisory committee members tend to vote in a manner that is relevant to their financial conflicts‐of‐interest. FDA drug, radiology, device, and biologic advisory committee meetings held between January 2001 and first quarter of 2008.
Data	98 advisory committee reports and 1191 committee members (611 advisory committee reports included in study (not all had data available in a format for inclusion in analysis) and 221 duplicates also included in Lurie 2006 removed).
Comparisons	Advisory committee reports with financial conflicts of interest (defined as at least one committee member with financial ties to the product manufacturer or competitor) and advisory committee meetings without financial conflicts of interest Advisory committee members with financial conflicts of interest (defined as financial ties to the product manufacturer or competitor) and advisory committee members without financial conflicts of interest
Outcomes	Recommendations (favourable recommendations defined as votes in favour of the drug)
Funding source	The study was commissioned by Eastern Research Group (ERG) and no additional funding related to any for‐profit organisation was disclosed
Declaration of conflicts of interest	Conflicts of interest not described
Notes
Risk of bias
Item	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Adequate document inclusion process	No	Only one author assessed committee meetings for inclusion (according to personal correspondence with lead author)
Adequate coding of conflicts of interest	Yes	The dataset was reviewed by multiple team members (according to personal correspondence with lead author)
Adequate coding of recommendations	Yes	The dataset was reviewed by multiple team members (according to personal correspondence with lead author)
Adequate dealing with confounding	No	Compared committee meetings of different drugs used for different diseases