T 1 month, there was no statistically significant difference in IOP at 1 month in three categories of sponsorship. Meta-regression was not used to the IOP Ver Change from baseline to 3 months depending OSI-420 Desmethyl Erlotinib on the categories of sponsorship w During controlled trial The covariates included above because of the limited number of studies. DISCUSSION PGA effectively lower IOP and are currently the first choice for the medical treatment of glaucoma.1, et al3 reported two Alasbali evidence of bias in studies of prostaglandin-industry-sponsored, 90% found the Rderten industry publications had the support of abstract conclusions their product, despite the fact that only 24% of these publications had a statistically significant Ma had to invest. We stressed the importance sorgf reading the results of Section publications Valid, to have the conclusions abstract.
3 In this study, we investigated whether the investigator distortion of the true IOP measurements exist to verify the information submitted. A study by Barden and colleagues44 investigated whether industry funding of clinical trials of drugs for acute pain Migr Ne and has produced better results than the non-profit sponsorship and also whether a drug is evaluated in a study funded by the manufacturer better off than if he judged by his competitors. Like in our study, their investigation found no evidence of a bias in RCTs, independent Ngig of whether it is the parents or the competing company sponsoring the study. For acute pain and clinical studies on migraine ne, data is collected via standardized questionnaires, but in clinical studies of glaucoma, the data levels of IOP, which have the potential investigator bias against.
Although it is difficult to be assessed by investigators IOP measurements, when a single article, we have assumed that, if we aggregate all of the items were sponsored by a pharmaceutical company and evaluate the IOP measurements when their own PGA was used, aggregate all products by pharmaceutical companies sponsored and evaluate the competing Ma took the IOP for latanoprost in these items, we h tten then a reference to the existence of a systematic bias against eitherfor or IOP measurements. By aggregating nonindustry sponsored studies of latanoprost, we identified a potentially biased in IOP and compared to industry-sponsored studies.
We postulated that if the bias were present, clinical studies, an individual PGA would gr Ere reduction of IOP, if funded by the parent company only if the show from a competitor or a source of sponsored nonindustry. This potential bias k Nnte also occur in the case of glare, because the side effect profile, particularly hyper-mie, Differs significantly between the PGA and could negate the usefulness of blinding. The results of our study do not support this hypothesis. The majority of studies that met our inclusion criteria were to latanoprost. This is Haupts Chlich latanoprost it was the first PGA Tour and, as such, is the Ma bar, Were evaluated at the others PGA. The number of the studies was from Alcon Allergan or the parent company with a competing company assessment or travoprost or bimatoprost, is not sufficient for meaningful application Ftige assessment aligned to erm. Hence