Background: Evidence of the association between authors’ conflicted financial relationships and conclusions in scientific reporting has incited extensive transformation of viewpoints and policies on conflict of interest. Objectives: To explore an association between authors’ position on rosiglitazone and the risk of myocardial infarction and conflicted financial relationships; and to estimate the prevalence of accurate disclosures in the published literature. Methods: On 4/10/2009, we searched Web of Science and SCOPUS for articles citing either of two publications (a meta-analysis of small trials and a subsequent large trial) contributing key data to the controversy. To be included, studies had to comment on rosiglitazone and the risk of myocardial infarction. We sought information about the authors’ conflicted financial relationships disclosed in the report itself and searching SCOPUS, PubMed, and Google for relationships disclosed elsewhere. Two reviewers blinded to the financial relationships independently classified each article as presenting a favorable, neutral, or unfavorable view on the risk of myocardial infarction with rosiglitazone and recommendations on use of rosiglitazone. Results: Of 202 included reports, 108 (53%) had a conflict of interest statement. Ninety authors (45%) had conflicted financial relationships. Authors of articles presenting a favorable view of the risk of myocardial infarction with rosiglitazone were significantly more likely to have financial relationships with antihyperglycemic agent manufacturers in general, 94%, and with rosiglitazonemanufacturers in particular, 87%, compared to authors of articles presenting an unfavorable view, 28% (rate ratio 3.38 (95% CI: 2.26 to 5.06)) and 20% (rate ratio of 4.29 (95% CI: 2.63 to 7.02)), respectively. Conclusions: Disclosure rates of conflicted financial relationships were unexpectedly low and showed a clear and strong linkage with authors expressed views. These findings, while not necessarily causal, underscore the need for further progress in reform for the scientific record to be trusted.