***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Financial and other competing interests have recently received increasing attention . In particular clinical research in plastic surgery attracts for-profit organizations , thus , explaining the increasing number of financial sponsorships . However , research articles often lack sufficient description of study design as well as disclosure of the source of funding . Furthermore , debate exists whether industry funding influences research findings and is leading to pro-industry results .A h and search was conducted identifying all r and omized controlled ( RCT ) and controlled clinical trials ( CCT ) in 4 plastic surgery journals ( Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery , British Journal of Plastic Surgery , Annals of Plastic Surgery , and AestheticPlastic Surgery ) between 1990 and 2005 . Subsequently , the influence of financial support on study outcome was analyzed . A total of 10,476 original articles were analyzed , result ing in the identification of 346 clinical trials which meet the Cochrane criteria for RCTs and CCTs . One hundred eighty-three trials and 163 studies were found to be RCTs and CCTs , respectively . Hereof , only 70 trials ( 20.2 % ) reported on grant support . Of these , 42 trials ( 60 % ) were supported by the industry . Depending on the topic addressed marked differences were detected regarding grant support . Studies with a focus on reconstructive plastic surgery were supported by the industry and by public institutions in almost equal shares ( 18 trials vs. 15 trials ) , whereas aesthetic surgical topics were predominantly funded by the industry ( 13 trials vs. 6 trials ) . Industry-funded trials reported more often statistically significant differences between treatment arms ( 28 trials vs. 16 trials ) . Authors ' conclusions were found to be positively associated with financial competing interests . However , trial funding is rarely declared in the plastic surgery literature . Thus , the quality of reporting needs to be improved to be able to investigate these relationships in greater detail and draw more representative conclusions The current report tests the hypotheses that commercial funding , country of origin , and presence of a coinvestigator with training in statistics are related to the likelihood of a published orthopaedic study arriving at a positive conclusion . All articles from the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery ( American ) , the Journal of Arthroplasty , and the American Journal of Sports Medicine published in 1 year were review ed . The blinded review process classified each article as to study design and outcome ( positive or negative ) , according to previously published definitions . Commercial funding was significantly associated with a positive outcome ; 78.9 % of commercially funded studies concluded with a positive outcome , compared with 63.3 % of nonfunded studies . The presence of a statistician or epidemiologist as a coinvestigator , and the place of origin of the study were not associated with outcome . Only 21 % of published studies were prospect i ve , 3.5 % were r and omized , and 10.5 % stated an experimental hypothesis ; these factors were not associated with study outcome . Published studies that received funding from commercial parties were significantly more likely to report a positive outcome than studies that received no such funding . This does not imply the presence of a corrupting or causative influence of industry sponsorship on research outcomes ; additional research is needed to determine whether such nonscientific factors actually affect study outcome or likelihood of publication Compared with nonfunded or peer- review ed funded projects , industry-sponsored clinical trials have traditionally been associated with more positive results . This relationship has been extensively studied in the nonsurgical literature . Although a few authors have addressed specialties , little has been reported on orthopedic clinical trials and their association with funding , study outcome , and efforts to reduce bias after r and omization across journals of multiple subspecialties . For the study reported here , we selected 5 major orthopedic subspecialty journals : Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery ( American Volume ) , Spine , Journal of Arthroplasty , Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma , and American Journal of Sports Medicine . We chose a 2-year limit for investigation ( 2002 - 2004 ) ; included all original r and omized clinical trials reported in these 5 journals ; and examined these trials for their study design , funding source , outcome , bias potential , and conclusion reached . Support for the 100 eligible orthopedic clinical trials was stated as coming from industry ( 26 trials , 26 % ) , nonprofit sources ( 19 trials , 19 % ) , and mixed sources ( 5 trials , 5 % ) ; no support was stated in 46 trials ( 46 % ) , and support was not reported in 4 trials ( 4 % ) . Of the 26 trials reporting industry support , 22 ( 85 % ) were grade d as indicating an outcome favorable to the new treatment . The association between industry funding and favorable outcome was strong and significant ( P<.001 ) . In almost half of the studies reported in Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and Spine , measures taken to reduce bias were not documented BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE To conduct a pilot study to compare the frequency of errors that accompany single vs. double data extraction , compare the estimate of treatment effect derived from these methods , and compare the time requirements for these methods . METHODS Review ers were r and omized to the role of data extractor or data verifier , and were blind to the study hypothesis . The frequency of errors associated with each method of data extraction was compared using the McNemar test . The data set for each method was used to calculate an efficacy estimate by each method , using st and ard meta-analytic techniques . The time requirement for each method was compared using a paired t-test . RESULTS Single data extraction result ed in more errors than double data extraction ( relative difference : 21.7 % , P = .019 ) . There was no substantial difference between methods in effect estimates for most outcomes . The average time spent for single data extraction  was less than the average time for double data extraction ( relative difference : 36.1 % , P = .003 ) . CONCLUSION In the case that single data extraction is used in systematic review s , review ers and readers need to be mindful of the possibility for more errors and the potential impact these errors may have on effect estimates Objective To identify trends in r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) in leading otolaryngology journals . Study Design and Setting We review ed all  RCTs of treatment efficacy from 2000 through 2005 in 4 major otolaryngology journals . Data included study quality , author 's conclusions , adverse events , and study support/ funding . Results Of 5467 total articles , 202 ( 3.7 % ) were RCTs of treatment efficacy . Slightly more than half of the trials were supported by for-profit organizations ( 25 % ) , not-for-profit groups ( 21 % ) , or both ( 7 % ) . Intent-to-treat analysis was used in 58 percent of trials , P values in 88 percent , and confidence intervals in 11 percent . Conclusions favoring the experimental group were unrelated to presence or absence of industry funding , and conclusions suggesting equivalence were unrelated to sample size . Conclusions RCTs are uncommon in otolaryngology journals , but they demonstrate frequent use of intent-to-treat analysis , no evidence of publication bias for funded studies , and no evidence of low power in studies suggesting equivalence . Significance This study has implication s for both the otolaryngology research er design ing studies and the practicing clinician interpreting them Objectives To investigate the degree to which Cochrane review s of drug interventions published in 2010 reported conflicts of interest from included trials and , among review s that reported this information , where it was located in the review documents . Design Cross sectional study . Data sources Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s. Selection criteria Systematic review s of drug interventions published in 2010 in the Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s , with review content classified as up to date in 2008 or later and with results from one or more r and omised controlled trials . Results Of 151 included Cochrane review s , 46 ( 30 % , 95 % confidence interval 24 % to 38 % ) reported information on the funding sources of included trials , including 30 ( 20 % , 14 % to 27 % ) that reported information on trial funding for all included trials and 16 ( 11 % , 7 % to 17 % ) that reported for some , but not all , trials . Only 16 of the 151 Cochrane review s ( 11 % , 7 % to 17 % ) provided any information on trial author-industry financial ties or trial author-industry employment . Information on trial funding and trial author-industry ties was reported in one to seven locations within each review , with no consistent reporting location observed . Conclusions Most Cochrane review s of drug trials published in 2010 did not provide information on trial funding sources or trial author-industry financial ties or employment . When this information was reported , location of reporting was inconsistent across review BACKGROUND Conflicting reports exist in the medical literature regarding the association between industry funding and published research findings . In this study , we examine the association between industry funding and the statistical significance of results in recently published medical and surgical trials . METHODS We examined a consecutive series of 332 r and omized trials published between January 1999 and June 2001 in 8 leading surgical journals and 5 medical journals . Each eligible study was independently review ed for method ological quality using a 21-point index with 5 domains : r and omization , outcomes , eligibility criteria , interventions and statistical issues . Our primary analysis included studies that explicitly identified the primary outcome and reported it as statistically significant . For studies that did not explicitly identify a primary outcome , we defined a " positive " study as one with at least 1 statistically significant outcome measure . We used multivariable regression analysis to determine whether there was an association between reported industry funding and trial results , while controlling for study quality and sample size . RESULTS Among the 332 r and omized trials , there were 158 drug trials , 87 surgical trials and 87 trials of other therapies . In 122 ( 37 % ) of the trials , authors declared industry funding . An unadjusted analysis of this sample of trials revealed that industry funding was associated with a statistically significant result in favour of the new industry product ( odds ratio [ OR ] 1.9 , 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] 1.3 - 3.5 ) . The association remained significant after adjustment for study quality and sample size ( adjusted OR 1.8 , 95 % CI 1.1 - 3.0 ) . There was a nonsignificant difference between surgical trials ( OR 8.0 , 95 % CI 1.1 - 53.2 ) and drug trials ( OR 1.6 , 95 % CI 1.1 - 2.8 ) , both of which were likely to have a pro-industry result ( relative OR 5.0 , 95 % CI 0.7 - 37.5 , p = 0.14 ) . INTERPRETATION Industry-funded trials are more likely to be associated with statistically significant pro-industry findings , both in medical trials and surgical interventions 
    Output:
    
Discussion This study was design ed to clarify whether industry-sponsored trials report more positive outcomes than non-industry trials .
It will be the first study to evaluate this topic in general and abdominal surgery .