Industrial support of biomedical research may bias scientific conclusions, as demonstrated by recent analyses of pharmaceutical studies. However, this issue has not been systematically examined in the area of nutrition research. The purpose of this study is to characterize financial sponsorship of scientific articles addressing the health effects of three commonly consumed beverages, and to determine how sponsorship affects published conclusions.
Methods and Findings
Medline searches of worldwide literature were used to identify three article types (interventional studies, observational studies, and scientific reviews) about soft drinks, juice, and milk published between 1 January, 1999 and 31 December, 2003. Financial sponsorship and article conclusions were classified by independent groups of coinvestigators. The relationship between sponsorship and conclusions was explored by exact tests and regression analyses, controlling for covariates. 206 articles were included in the study, of which 111 declared financial sponsorship. Of these, 22 had all industry funding, 47 had no industry funding, and 32 had mixed funding. Funding source was significantly related to conclusions when considering all article types (p 0.037). For interventional studies, the proportion with unfavorable conclusions was 0 for all industry funding versus 37 for no industry funding (p 0.009). The odds ratio of a favorable versus unfavorable conclusion was 7.61 (95 confidence interval 1.27 to 45.73), comparing articles with all industry funding to no industry funding.
Industry funding of nutrition-related scientific articles may bias conclusions in favor of sponsors'' products, with potentially significant implications for public health.