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

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

Publication bias in animal research presented at the 2008 Society of Critical Care Medicine Conference

Abstract Background To determine a direct measure of publication bias by determining subsequent full-paper publication (P) of studies reported in animal research abstracts presented at an international conference (A). Methods We selected 100 random (using a random-number generator) A from the 2008 Society of Critical Care Medicine Conference. Using a data collection form and study manual, we recorded methodology and result variables from A. We searched PubMed and EMBASE to June 2015, and DOAJ and Google Scholar to May 2017 to screen for subsequent P. Methodology and result variables were recorded from P to determine changes in reporting from A. Predictors of P were examined using Fisher’s Exact Test. Results 62% (95% CI 52–71%) of studies described in A were subsequently P after a median 19 [IQR 9–33.3] months from conference presentation. Reporting of studies in A was of low quality: randomized 27% (the method of randomization and allocation concealment not described), blinded 0%, sample-size calculation stated 0%, specifying the primary outcome 26%, numbers given with denominators 6%, and stating number of animals used 47%. Only being an orally presented (vs. poster presented) A (14/16 vs. 48/84, p = 0.025) predicted P. Reporting of studies in P was of poor quality: randomized 39% (the method of randomization and allocation concealment not described), likely blinded 6%, primary outcome specified 5%, sample size calculation stated 0%, numbers given with denominators 34%, and number of animals used stated 56%. Changes in reporting from A to P occurred: from non-randomized to randomized 19%, from non-blinded to blinded 6%, from negative to positive outcomes 8%, from having to not having a stated primary outcome 16%, and from non-statistically to statistically significant findings 37%. Post-hoc, using publication data, P was predicted by having positive outcomes (published 62/62, unpublished 33/38; p = 0.003), or statistically significant results (published 58/62, unpublished 20/38; p < 0.001). Conclusions Only 62% (95% CI 52–71%) of animal research A are subsequently P; this was predicted by oral presentation of the A, finally having positive outcomes, and finally having statistically significant results. Publication bias is prevalent in critical care animal research

Reasons and Risk Factors for the Initial Regimen Modification in Chinese Treatment-Naïve Patients with HIV Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

To investigate the reasons and risk factors for modification of the first combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) currently used for HIV infected patients who were treatment naïve in Shanghai China.Making a retrospective observational research on treatment naïve patients with HIV infection who initiated cART during the period of September 1st 2005---December 1st 2013. The demographic and clinical data were collected from the first visit to the time of the first regimen modification or the last visit in December 1st, 2014. The reasons of treatment modification were recorded. Survival analysis of modification was made by Kaplan-Meier curves analysis and log rank test, and a Cox multiple regression model was constructed to identify related factors of modification.A total number of the eligible participants were 3372 and 871(25.8%) patients changed their first cART regimen. The median follow up was 22 months [interquartile range (IQR) 14-39]. Among patients who modified the original regimen, drug toxicity occurred in 805(92.4%) participants and 44(5.1%) experienced treatment failure. In multiple regression analysis regimen modification was associated with patients' age more than 40 years old (aHR 1.224, 95%CI 1.051-1.426, P = 0.010), CD4 less than 200(aHR 1.218, 95%CI 1.044-1.421, P = 0.012) and the initial regimen they received. Compared with the regimen of TDF+3TC+EFV, patients with regimen of d4T+3TC+NVP, d4T+3TC+EFV, AZT+3TC+NVP or AZT+3TC+EFV were 10.4, 8.2, 6.4, 2.5 times more likely to modify their initial regimen, respectively.The main reason for the regimen switch was drug toxicity and main risk factors for regimen modification were age older than 40 years, CD4 cell counts less than 200 at baseline and regimen they received. Among the 2NRTI plus 1NNRTI regimens, the co-formulation of d4T+3TC+NVP had the highest risk for modification while the regimen of TDF+3TC+EFV was the most tolerable treatment regimen in first years' follow up