OBJECTIVE: Research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry is often assumed to be more likely to report favorable cost-effectiveness results. The objective of this study was to determine whether there was a relationship between the source of funding and the reporting of positive results. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify economic evaluations of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. We extracted the source of funding, region of study, the journal name and impact factor and all reported incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We identified which ICERs were under the thresholds of $20,000, $50,000 and $100,000 A quality score between 0 and 7 was also given to each of the studies. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) for the analysis. RESULTS: The systematic review yielded 532 potential abstracts: Seventeen met our final eligibility criteria, 531 ICERs were analyzed, and ten studies (59%) were funded by industry. There was no significant difference between industry and non-industry funded studies reporting ICERs below the thresholds of $20,000 and $50,000. However industry sponsored studies were more likely to report ICERs below $100,000 [OR=4.69, 95%CI (1.77-12.43)]. Studies of higher methodological quality (higher than 4.5) were less likely to report ICERs below $20,000 and $50,000 than studies of lower methodological quality (score under 4). Methodological quality was not significantly different between studies reporting ICERs under $100,000. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that funding source (industry vs. non-industry) did not significantly affect the reporting of ICERs below $20,000 and $50,000 thresholds. Methodological quality might be a more significant factor than source of funding in differentiating which studies are likely to report favorable ICERs, with the higher quality studies significantly less likely to report ICERs below $20,000/QALY and $50,000/QALY.