No publication bias in industry funded clinical trials of degenerative diseases of the spine

Industry sponsorship of clinical research of degenerative diseases of the spine has been associated with excessive positive published results as compared to research carried out without industry funding. We sought the rates of publication of clinical trials of degenerative diseases of the spine based on funding source as a possible explanation for this phenomenon. We reviewed all clinical trials registered at clinicaltrials.gov relating to degenerative diseases of the spine as categorized under six medical subject heading terms (spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, spondylolysis, spondylosis, failed back surgery syndrome, intervertebral disc degeneration) and with statuses of completed or terminated. These collected studies were categorized as having, or not having, industry funding. Published results for these studies were then sought within the clinicaltrials.gov database itself, PubMed and Google Scholar. One hundred sixty-one clinical trials met these criteria. One hundred nineteen of these trials had industry funding and 42 did not. Of those with industry funding, 45 (37.8%) had identifiable results. Of those without industry funding, 17 (40.5%) had identifiable results. There was no difference in the rates of publication of results from clinical trials of degenerative diseases of the spine no matter the funding source.