The influence manufacturers have on negative-pressure wound therapy research

Studies investigating the effects of negative-pressure wound therapy using the Chariker-Jeter system (gauze-based interface) and the vacuum-assisted closure system often have outcomes that favor one particular system. This study attempts to examine whether manufacturer involvement could be related to the outcomes of these scientific studies.

A literature review was undertaken to identify a cohort of studies that compared these two forms of negative-pressure wound therapy. Clinical outcomes studies, basic research studies, and published conference abstracts were included. Allthe articles' abstracts and conclusions were given to five surgeons, who were blinded to the titles and authors. They were individually asked to record what they would consider to be the take-home message of each article (in terms of which system is superior). After categorizing each study according to the system that it appears to favor, the level of manufacturer involvement in each study was evaluated. The relationship between the outcome of a study and the level of manufacturer involvement in that study was then investigated.

Of the total of 24 studies found to match the inclusion criteria, 22 were considered to favor a particular system (the other two were categorized as impartial). Of the 24 studies, 19 had some form of manufacturer involvement. Of the 19 that had some form of manufacturer involvement, 18 had outcomes that were deemed beneficial to the involved manufacturer, whereas one was deemed to have an impartial outcome.

This study suggests that manufacturer involvement in these studies (regardless of level) correlates with the outcomes being beneficial to the involved manufacturer in almost all cases. Potential reasons for this and the implications thereof are discussed.