AJSM signin
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
First published on July 19, 2007, doi:10.1177/0363546507304720

(American Journal of Sports Medicine 2007;35:1809.)

A more recent version of this article appeared on November 1, 2007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (AJSM PreView[PDF])
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
35/11/1809    most recent
0363546507304720v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lubowitz, J. H.
Right arrow Articles by Reid, J. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lubowitz, J. H.
Right arrow Articles by Reid, J. B., III

Article

The Relationship Between the Outcome of Studies of Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation and the Presence of Commercial Funding

James H. Lubowitz, MD1*, David Appleby, MPH2, Joseph M. Centeno, MD1, Shane K. Woolf, MD1, John B. Reid III, MD1

1 Taos Orthopaedic Institute Research Foundation, Taos, New Mexico
2 Smith & Nephew, Andover Massachusetts

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jlubowitz{at}kitcarson.net.


   Abstract

Background: Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) is an expensive treatment option for focal cartilage defects, and commercial funding of research is associated with a study reaching a positive conclusion. The purpose of this analysis is to compare outcomes (and levels of evidence) between published ACI outcome studies that were commercially funded and studies that were not commercially funded.

Hypothesis: Commercially funded ACI literature could be commercially biased.

Study Design: Comparative meta-analysis.

Methods: MEDLINE was searched for human, knee, ACI, nonmembrane, English language, and clinical outcome studies. Studies were evaluated with regard to funding status (commercially funded or not commercially funded), outcomes, and levels of evidence. Outcomes and levels of evidence were evaluated and compared for commercially funded studies versus those that were not commercially funded.

Results: Twenty-three studies were included; 16 (70%) were commercially funded. Pooled clinical outcome measures data were not significantly different (Lysholm, Modified Cincinnati, patient-reported Cincinnati, Tegner, pain Visual Analog Scale) when comparing commercially funded studies with those that were not commercially funded. However, distribution of levels of evidence was significantly lower (P = .045) for commercially funded studies.

Conclusion: Reassuringly, commercial funding of ACI studies did not result in a difference in published clinical outcomes versus those that were not commercially funded. However, the lower levels of evidence of commercially funded studies suggests that commercially funded ACI studies may be of less value to surgeons desiring to practice evidence-based medicine, and, in the future, commercial entities funding medical research could selectively fund studies of the highest levels of evidence.







HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2007 by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine.