Introduction: Although industry payments to physicians and surgeons remain a subject of controversy, relationships between industry and orthopaedic surgeons continue to grow. Notably, recent analyses have demonstrated significant increases in the rate and magnitude of payments among orthopaedic surgeons, despite the passing of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010. Given the concerns regarding how these relationships may affect the peer-review process, our analysis aimed to evaluate how payments among editorial board members of orthopaedic journals have changed over a contemporary time frame. Methods:The Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor tool was used to identify all orthopaedic journals with a 2019 impact factor of $1.5. Editorial board members from these respective journals were identified from each journal's website. Subsequently, the Open Payments database by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was queried to identify industry payments received by these board members between 2014 and 2019. The quantity and magnitude of payments were then evaluated and compared over this study period. All monetary values were adjusted for inflation.Results: A total of 18 orthopaedic journals were included in our analysis. Of the 1,519 editorial board members identified, 711 (46.81%) received some form of industry payment in 2019. The total, average, and median payments over this study period decreased for 6 (31.6%), 7 (36.8%), and 8 of the included journals (44.44%), respectively. Six hundred twenty board members had higher average payments in 2019 than in 2014. Conclusion: Our analysis demonstrated high rates of industry payments among editorial board members of high-impact orthopaedic journals. In addition, we demonstrated marked growth in the total, average, and median magnitude of these payments since
Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the financial trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for the most billed procedures at a single institution from 2000 to 2020 within pediatric otolaryngology. Study Design Retrospective data analysis. Setting United States. Methods The most billed surgical and in-office procedures in pediatric otolaryngology at our institution were identified in the Physician Fee Schedule Look-up Tool from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to extract reimbursement data for each CPT code ( Current Procedural Terminology). Monetary data were adjusted for inflation to 2020 US dollars per the changes to the consumer price index. Mean annual and total percentage changes in reimbursement were calculated by the adjusted values for all included procedures (N = 25). Results From 2000 to 2020, without adjusting for inflation, reimbursement for the most billed procedures increased by 10.9%, while the allocated relative value unit per procedure increased by 15.4%. However, when adjusted for inflation, reimbursement for these procedures decreased by 27.5% over the study period. Conclusions The study findings identify a downward trend in reimbursement for the most billed procedures in pediatric otolaryngology at our institution. Given the low predominance of pediatric otolaryngology codes within Medicare reimbursement, these codes are rarely reviewed for accurate revaluation. It is imperative that our professional society remain active and engaged within this process to ensure quality delivery of care to our patients.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reporting and rates of loss to follow‐up (LTFU) in head and neck cancer (HNC) randomized controlled trials based in the United States.Data SourcesPubmed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus databases.Review MethodsA systematic review of titles in Pubmed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library was performed. Inclusion criteria were US‐based randomized controlled trials focused on the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of HNC. Retrospective analyses and pilot studies were excluded. The mean age, patients randomized, publication details, trial sites, funding, and LTFU data were recorded. Reporting of participants through each stage of the trial was documented. Binary logistic regression was performed to evaluate associations between study characteristics and reporting LTFU.ResultsA total of 3255 titles were reviewed. Of these, 128 studies met the inclusion criteria for analysis. A total of 22,016 patients were randomized. The mean age of participants was 58.6 years. Overall, 35 studies (27.3%) reported LTFU, and the mean LTFU rate was 4.37%. With the exception of 2 statistical outliers, study characteristics including publication year, number of trial sites, journal discipline, funding source, and intervention type did not predict the odds of reporting LTFU. Compared to 95% of trials reporting participants at eligibility and 100% reporting randomization, only 47% and 57% reported on withdrawal and details of the analysis, respectively.ConclusionThe majority of clinical trials in HNC in the United States do not report LTFU, which inhibits the evaluation of attrition bias that may impact the interpretation of significant findings. Standardized reporting is needed to evaluate the generalizability of trial results to clinical practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.