The Lacuna Project

lacuna (n.) a gap in a record where something should be

Independent research. Not affiliated with any government, agency, or company.

Exhibit 603

Association of Industry Sponsorship With Outcomes of Nutrition Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Exhibit 603 ยท Research article

Association of Industry Sponsorship With Outcomes of Nutrition Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Although industry-sponsored studies were more likely to have conclusions favorable to industry than non-industry-sponsored studies, the difference was not significant.

Meta-analysis of 12 reports. Industry-sponsored nutrition studies were more likely to have favorable conclusions (risk ratio 1.31, 95% CI 0.99-1.72), a difference the authors call not significant. The authors say the findings suggest but do not establish an association.

Source
Chartres N, Fabbri A, Bero LA; JAMA Internal Medicine 176(12):1769-1777
Date
December 2016
Quoted from
Abstract, Conclusions and Relevance
Grade
Peer-reviewed
Document
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6721
Accessed
2026-11-09
Cited by
Findings citing this exhibit
Note
Included in this register as the closest counterweight to the sponsorship-bias findings.

Cited by

Finding AGR-2.12
Peer-reviewed Three analyses of nutrition research compared funding source with conclusions and found industry-sponsored work more often favorable to industry. A meta-analysis of 12 reports found a risk ratio of 1.31 that the authors call not significant. An analysis of 17 reviews of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain found a risk ratio of 5.0 for reviews with a disclosed industry conflict. A study of 206 articles on soft drinks, juice and milk found that 0 percent of all-industry-funded interventional studies had unfavorable conclusions against 37 percent of studies with no industry funding.