Research Literacy
Who Funded the Study, and How Do You Find Out?
The short answer
Funding source doesn't make a finding right or wrong, but it's checkable, and readers rarely check it. Some journals put a structured Funding line directly in the PubMed abstract — a 2023 GLP-1 network meta-analysis names an Italian research foundation and an EU grant; a 2025 GLP-1 surgical-safety review names two NIHR fellowships. Where there's no funding line, author affiliations in the byline often show it anyway: 3 of the 14 named authors on a semaglutide trial-extension paper list a Novo Nordisk A/S affiliation, and 5 of 7 authors on a tirzepatide post-hoc analysis list an Eli Lilly and Company affiliation. ClinicalTrials.gov adds a third path — its Sponsor field names Novo Nordisk A/S directly for the STEP 1 trial, and every trial site is labeled a 'Novo Nordisk Investigational Site.'
Quick answers
- What is it?
- This is a practical guide to finding out who paid for a given study, using three checkable public sources: a journal's structured funding statement, author affiliations in the byline, and a clinical trial registry's sponsor field.
- Why are people interested in it?
- Funding source doesn't make a finding right or wrong, but readers rarely check it even though it's fast and free to look up.
- What has actually been studied?
- Five real, currently indexed papers and one trial registry record demonstrating each method: a 2023 GLP-1 network meta-analysis with an academic/EU funding line, a 2025 GLP-1 surgical-safety review funded by NIHR fellowships, a semaglutide extension paper with Novo Nordisk co-authors, a tirzepatide analysis with Eli Lilly co-authors, and the STEP 1 trial's ClinicalTrials.gov sponsor field.
- How strong is the evidence?
- Demonstrated directly and verifiably across five real papers and one registry record — this is a how-to guide grounded in specific, checkable examples rather than a broad claim about bias in the field.
- What don't we know yet?
- How representative these five examples are of the broader literature, whether funder involvement changed any specific result in these papers, what the full conflict-of-interest disclosures say for the industry-affiliated authors identified, and how consistently different journals require a structured funding statement.
- Where can I read the original research?
- Sources at the bottom of this page: Caruso I, Di Gioia L, Di Molfetta S, et al., EClinicalMedicine, 2023; and Kamarajah SK, Gudiozzi N, Findlay JM, et al., EClinicalMedicine, 2025.
The short answer: Funding source doesn't automatically make a finding right or wrong — but it's a checkable fact that shapes how much weight a reasonable reader gives a result, and most readers never check it. There are three fast, free ways to find out, and all three are demonstrated by real, currently indexed papers. Some journals, like EClinicalMedicine, require a structured Funding statement inside the abstract itself — visible directly on PubMed, no full-text access needed. Where no funding line exists, author affiliations in the byline often tell the same story: 3 of the 14 named authors on a semaglutide trial-extension paper list a Novo Nordisk A/S affiliation, and 5 of the 7 authors on a tirzepatide post-hoc analysis list an Eli Lilly and Company affiliation. And for any registered trial, ClinicalTrials.gov's Sponsor field states the funder outright — for semaglutide's pivotal STEP 1 trial, that field reads "Novo Nordisk A/S," and every one of its dozens of study sites is literally labeled a "Novo Nordisk Investigational Site" in the public registry.
What the research shows
Why this is worth checking at all
A funding source doesn't determine whether a result is true. Industry-funded trials are frequently well-designed, rigorously conducted, and independently replicated; independently funded studies are not automatically free of bias, error, or motivated framing. What funding source does reliably correlate with, across large bodies of meta-research outside this specific search, is which outcomes get emphasized, how comparator doses get chosen, and — tying directly to Peptide Proof's companion piece on publication bias — which studies are more likely to see print quickly versus sit unpublished. None of that requires assuming bad faith. It's a reason to treat "who paid for this" as one more field to check, the same way a reader checks sample size or study design, rather than either an automatic disqualifier or something to ignore entirely.
Method one: read the abstract's funding line, when there is one
Some journals build funding disclosure directly into the structured abstract, which means it's visible on PubMed without ever opening the full paper. A 2023 network meta-analysis in EClinicalMedicine, comparing GLP-1 receptor agonist-based treatment strategies for type 2 diabetes across 40 trials, ends its abstract with an explicit funding statement: "Fondazione per la Ricerca Biomedica 'Saverio e Isabella Cianciola' and Next Generation EU, in the context of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan." That's an Italian biomedical research foundation and a European Union recovery grant — academic and public funding, not a pharmaceutical company, and it's stated plainly rather than requiring any digging.
A second example from the same journal, a 2025 systematic review and meta-regression on the safety of preoperative GLP-1 receptor agonist use before elective surgery, pooling 97,059 patients across 21 studies, closes with its own funding line: "NIHR Doctoral Research Fellowship and NIHR Exeter Biomedical Research Centre Senior Investigator Fellowship" — UK National Institute for Health and Care Research funding, again independent of any drug manufacturer. Both examples show the same thing: when a journal requires this field in the abstract, a reader gets the answer for free, in the time it takes to read the last sentence.
Method two: read the author affiliations, even without a funding line
Not every journal requires a structured funding statement in the abstract, and PubMed's structured metadata doesn't always surface one. But the author affiliation list — a standard part of any PubMed record — often carries the same information, because industry-sponsored trials are frequently co-authored by employees of the company that makes the drug. A 2022 paper in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism reporting the STEP 1 trial's extension results — what happened to participants' weight and cardiometabolic markers a year after they stopped taking semaglutide — lists 14 named authors. Three of them, Kandler, Konakli, and Oral, are affiliated with "Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark" directly in the byline. No separate disclosure statement is required to see this; it's sitting in the author list itself.
The same pattern shows up on the other major GLP-1 drug. A 2026 post hoc analysis in PLoS ONE, examining how many participants across the SURMOUNT trial program hit combined weight-loss and cardiometabolic targets with tirzepatide, lists seven authors. Five of them — García-Pérez, Lee, Karanikas, Chen, and Plat — are affiliated with "Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana." Again, this is visible on PubMed's standard metadata page, before ever requesting the full text.
Method three: check the trial registry's sponsor field directly
For any study that started life as a registered clinical trial, ClinicalTrials.gov offers a third, even more direct route: a dedicated "Sponsor" field. STEP 1, the pivotal trial that established semaglutide's weight-loss effect and enrolled 1,961 participants, lists its sponsor as "Novo Nordisk A/S" in that field — and, as a small but telling detail, every one of its more than 130 study locations across a dozen-plus countries is named in the registry as a "Novo Nordisk Investigational Site." This is the most unambiguous of the three methods, since it comes from a required registry field rather than an inference drawn from a byline.
What none of these three methods gives you
All three methods above are fast and genuinely useful, but they surface funding and employer affiliation specifically — not the fuller conflict-of-interest picture. Individual authors' consulting fees, speaking honoraria, stock holdings, or unpaid advisory roles typically live in a separate disclosure section within the full-text article, which isn't always free to access and isn't captured in PubMed's structured metadata at all. A reader relying only on the abstract and byline gets a real signal, not the complete disclosure.
What we don't know yet
How representative these five examples are of the broader literature. This piece verified specific funding and affiliation details for five real papers rather than surveying disclosure practices across the field as a whole.
Whether funder involvement changed any specific result in these five papers. None of the sources here provide evidence, one way or the other, that funding source altered a conclusion. The point demonstrated is that the funding relationship is checkable, not that it invalidates any particular finding.
What the full conflict-of-interest disclosures say for the industry-affiliated authors identified here. This search relied on PubMed's structured metadata, which surfaces employer affiliation but not the complete disclosure statements filed with each journal.
How consistently different journals require a structured funding statement. EClinicalMedicine required one in both examples checked here. Whether that's the norm or the exception across the broader biomedical literature wasn't assessed in this search.
Sources
- Caruso I, Di Gioia L, Di Molfetta S, et al. Glucometabolic Outcomes of GLP-1 Receptor Agonist-Based Therapies in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. EClinicalMedicine, 2023;64:102181. DOI
- Kamarajah SK, Gudiozzi N, Findlay JM, et al. Evaluation of Safety of Preoperative GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression. EClinicalMedicine, 2025;87:103408. DOI
- Wilding JPH, Batterham RL, Davies M, et al. Weight Regain and Cardiometabolic Effects After Withdrawal of Semaglutide: The STEP 1 Trial Extension. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 2022;24(8):1553-1564. DOI
- Sattar N, Srinath R, García-Pérez LE, et al. Achieving the Triple Endpoint of Body Weight Reduction Thresholds, Systolic Blood Pressure Reduction ≥5 mmHg and Non-HDL Cholesterol <130 mg/dL With Tirzepatide: A Post Hoc Analysis From the SURMOUNT Trials. PLoS ONE, 2026;21(8):e0345032. DOI
- ClinicalTrials.gov. Effect and Safety of Semaglutide 2.4 mg Once-Weekly in Subjects With Overweight or Obesity (STEP 1). NCT03548935. Record
Article records maintained via PubMed. Peptide Proof reports what studies found. It does not provide medical advice, dosing guidance, or treatment recommendations.
Sources
- Glucometabolic Outcomes of GLP-1 Receptor Agonist-Based Therapies in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
- EClinicalMedicine, 2023 · DOI
- Evaluation of Safety of Preoperative GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression
- EClinicalMedicine, 2025 · n=97059 · DOI
- Weight Regain and Cardiometabolic Effects After Withdrawal of Semaglutide: The STEP 1 Trial Extension
- Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 2022 · n=327 · DOI
- Achieving the Triple Endpoint of Body Weight Reduction Thresholds, Systolic Blood Pressure Reduction, and Non-HDL Cholesterol With Tirzepatide: A Post Hoc Analysis From the SURMOUNT Trials
- PLoS ONE, 2026 · DOI
- Effect and Safety of Semaglutide 2.4 mg Once-Weekly in Subjects With Overweight or Obesity (STEP 1)
- ClinicalTrials.gov · NCT03548935, 2018 · n=1961
Get the evidence, not the hype.
New research briefs, plainly written and fully sourced. No dosing advice, ever.