Does Type of Sponsorship of Randomized Controlled Trials Influence Treatment Effect Size Estimates in Rehabilitation: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

摘要: Background Sponsorship bias could affect research results to inform decision makers when using the of these trials. The extent which sponsorship in field physical therapy has been unexplored literature. Therefore, main aim this study was evaluate influence on treatment effects randomized controlled trials area. Methods This a meta-epidemiological study. A random sample included meta-analyses area were identified. Data extraction including assessments appropriate funders conducted independently by two reviewers. To determine association between biases related and effect sizes, two-level analysis meta-meta-analytic approach. Results We analyzed 393 43 meta-analyses. most common sources for government (n = 205, 52%), followed academic 44, 11%) industry 39, 10%). funding not declared high percentage 85, 22%). trial sponsor assessed as being 246 (63%) considered inappropriate/unclear 147 (37%) them. have moderate evidence say that with tended average larger size than those (effect 0.15; 95% confidence interval -0.03 0.33). Conclusions Based our trials, it seems are funded either academia small industry. Treatment estimates 0.15 lack compared funding. Contrarily other fields, relatively their perhaps less marked. All be explained relative youth and/or absence clear interests. In front call action World Health Organization strengthen rehabilitation health systems, raise issue need public field.