We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Books, Journals, New Media |


Nawab Qizilbash, MRCP, DPhil; Lon Schneider, MD; Martin Farlow, MD; Anne Whitehead, MSc; Julian Higgins, PhD
JAMA. 1999;281(24):2287-2288. doi:10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-281-24-jbk0623.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


In Reply: The criticism that we did not investigate the potential effect of corporate-sponsored studies on the meta-analysis and that most of the authors had received financial support that could have led to bias is misinformed. It is not surprising that trials "without corporate sponsorship found no clinical effect" as they all had small sample sizes. Contrary to the assertions of Mr Koepp and Dr Miles, the most favorable trial was excluded because of deficiencies in design and analysis, and this study did not have corporate funding.1 Nevertheless, a glance at the point estimates of the treatment effects of the various studies reveals no apparent difference between corporate and noncorporate studies. As the test of heterogeneity was not significant, we had no reason to evaluate sponsorship as a stratification variable. Unplanned subgroup analysis often leads to spurious results,2 especially when there are so few studies. Most (large) drug trials are sponsored by industry and those used for registration are scrutinized by regulatory authorities, often after involvement in their design.3 The methods of the meta-analysis were unbiased. Also, in this favorable meta-analysis—as we discussed clearly in our article—the effect sizes generally were smaller than those reported in the individual publications.


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.