Abstract
This review summarizes a systematic analysis of 216 randomized trials of cardiovascular interventions performed during 2008-2019, according to the source of trial funding. The systematic analysis showed that on average the results of each trial would change significance if only 5 patients experienced different outcomes. Industry-sponsored trials were more likely to use composite endpoints, noninferiority designs, and twice as likely as nonindustry trials to report results favoring the device arm. Over 80% of industry trials used reporting strategies or "spin" suggesting the device arm was advantageous versus fewer than half of non-industry trials. The review discusses the implications of these findings.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
