Influence of author's affiliation and funding sources on the results of cohort studies on occupational cancer.
BACKGROUND
Reliability and credibility of research conducted by industry have been questioned, including in the field of occupational health.


METHODS
Cohort studies on occupational cancer published between 2000 and 2010 were compared according to their results, their conclusions, their funding, and the affiliation of their authors.


RESULTS
Overall, 510 articles were included. Studies published by authors with public affiliation or funded by public grants concluded that their study showed an excess of cancer more frequently (P = 0.01) than studies published by authors with private affiliation or funded by private grants (88% [95%CI = 85-91] vs. 73% [95%CI = 56-88] and 92% [95%CI = 86-97] vs. 71% [95%CI = 57-84], respectively). Discrepancies between statistical results and conclusion occurred more frequently in articles written by authors from the private sector than from the public sector (42% [IC95% = 26-60] vs. 23% [IC95% = 18-26], P = 0.02).


CONCLUSIONS
Industry affiliations of authors or industry support of studies are associated with the results of published studies on occupational cancer. The underlying mechanisms warrant further investigation.
['Rollin|Laetitia|L|', 'Griffon|Nicolas|N|', 'Darmoni|Stefan J|SJ|', 'Gehanno|Jean-Francois|JF|']
D015331:Cohort Studies D016265:Conflict of Interest D006801:Humans D007221:Industry D009369:Neoplasms D009784:Occupational Diseases D015203:Reproducibility of Results D012108:Research Personnel D012109:Research Support as Topic
industry conflict of interest neoplasms occupational exposures