Research brief · 2026-09-09
Who Funded the Study, and How Do You Find Out?
A funding source does not determine whether a result is true. Industry-funded trials are frequently well designed and independently replicated, and independently funded studies are not automatically free of bias. What funding does correlate with, across the meta-research literature, is which outcomes get emphasized, how comparators get chosen, and which studies see print quickly. That is a reason to treat who paid for this as one more field to check, like sample size, rather than a disqualifier or something to ignore.
The first method is the abstract's funding line, which some journals build into the structured abstract so it shows on PubMed. A 2023 network meta-analysis in EClinicalMedicine by Caruso and colleagues, comparing GLP-1 strategies for type 2 diabetes across 40 trials, ends its abstract by naming an Italian research foundation and an EU recovery grant. A 2025 review in the same journal by Kamarajah and colleagues, on GLP-1 drugs before surgery across 97,059 patients, names two UK NIHR fellowships.
The second method is author affiliations, which sit in every PubMed record. A 2022 paper in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism reporting the STEP 1 extension lists 14 authors, three of whom list Novo Nordisk A/S. A 2026 post hoc analysis in PLoS ONE of the SURMOUNT tirzepatide trials lists seven authors, five of whom list Eli Lilly and Company. Semaglutide and tirzepatide are prescription medications, and decisions about them belong with a physician.
The third method is the registry. ClinicalTrials.gov has a dedicated Sponsor field. STEP 1, record NCT03548935, which enrolled 1,961 participants, lists Novo Nordisk A/S as sponsor, and every one of its more than 130 locations is named a Novo Nordisk Investigational Site. What none of these methods gives you is consulting fees, honoraria, stock or advisory roles, which live in the full-text disclosure section. And nothing here shows that funding changed any of these results. The relationship is checkable, not disqualifying. Sources are listed below.
Sources
- Caruso I et al., Glucometabolic outcomes of GLP-1 receptor agonist-based therapies in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis (40 trials)
- EClinicalMedicine, 2023
- Kamarajah SK et al., Evaluation of safety of preoperative GLP-1 receptor agonists in elective surgery: systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression (n=97,059)
- EClinicalMedicine, 2025
- Wilding JPH et al., Weight regain and cardiometabolic effects after withdrawal of semaglutide: the STEP 1 trial extension (n=327)
- Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 2022
- ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03548935, STEP 1 trial of semaglutide in overweight or obesity, sponsor Novo Nordisk A/S (n=1,961)
- ClinicalTrials.gov, 2018
Peptide Proof reports what studies found. We do not give medical advice, dosing guidance, or treatment recommendations.