Comparison of Conflicts of Interest among Published Hernia Researchers Self-Reported with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database

Olavarria, Oscar A.; Holihan, Julie L.; Cherla, Deepa V.; Perez, Cristina A.; Kao, Lillian S.; Ko, Tien C.; Liang, Mike K.

doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.01.052

Cited by 22 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 19 High levels of under-reporting have also been identified internationally in relation to other recipients of industry payments, including authors of clinical practice guidelines 23 24 and scientific publications. 26 27 29 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…21 Similarly, discrepancies were found between sponsorships reported on patient organisation and drug company websites in Italy. 19 More broadly, cross-interrogation of different data sources has revealed undisclosed industry ties among treatment guideline panellists, [22][23][24] clinical trialists, authors of medical journal articles [25][26][27][28][29] and some clinical commissioning groups 30 and National Health Service trusts in England. 31 We examine the under-reporting of payments to UK patient organisations from 2012 to 2016 by comparing payment disclosures made by 87 companies to 425 patient organisations with the annual accounts of the same set of patient organisations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Under-reported relationship: a comparative study of pharmaceutical industry and patient organisation payment disclosures in the UK (2012–2016)

Ozierański

Csanádi²,

Rickard

et al. 2020

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo examine the under-reporting of pharmaceutical company payments to patient organisations by donors and recipients.DesignComparative descriptive analysis of payments disclosed on drug company and charity regulator websites.SettingUK.Participants87 donors (drug companies) and 425 recipients (patient organisations) reporting payments in 2012–2016.Main outcome measuresNumber and value of payments reported by donors and recipients; differences in reported payments from/to the same donors and recipients; payments reported in either dataset but not the other one; agreement between donor–recipient ties established by payments; overlap between donor and recipient lists and, respectively, industry and patient organisation data.ResultsOf 87 donors, 63 (72.4%) reported payments but 84 (96.6%) were mentioned by recipients. Although donors listed 425 recipients, only 200 (47.1%) reported payments. The number and value of payments reported by donors were 259.8% and 163.7% greater than those reported by recipients, respectively. The number of donors with matching payment numbers and values in both datasets were 3.4% and 0.0%, respectively; for recipients these figures were 7.8% and 1.9%. There were 24 and 3 donors missing from industry and patient organisation data during the entire study period, representing 38.1% and 3.6% of those in the respective datasets. The share of donor–recipient ties in which industry and patient organisation data agreed about donors and recipients was 38.9% and 68.4% in each dataset, respectively. Of 63 donors reporting payments, only 3 (4.8%) had their recipient lists fully overlapping with patient organisation data. Of 200 recipients reporting industry funding, 102 (51.0%) had their donor lists fully overlapping with industry data.ConclusionsBoth donors and recipients under-reported payments. Existing donor and recipient disclosure systems cannot manage potential conflicts of interest associated with industry payments. Increased standardisation could limit the under-reporting by each side but only an integrated donor–recipient database could eliminate it.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Under-reported relationship: a comparative study of pharmaceutical industry and patient organisation payment disclosures in the UK (2012–2016)

Ozierański

Csanádi²,

Rickard

et al. 2020

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Low levels of disclosure have been encountered (5,8,34,35) and demonstrated (21,36) in other studies and point to a broader concern regarding adherence to journal COI disclosure policies.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 78%

Disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest in evidence underpinning vitamin D and calcium recommendations in bone health guidelines

Baram

McDonald

Bero

2022

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The present study aims to examine the relationship between study funding sources, author conflicts of interest and conclusions in studies supporting vitamin D and calcium intake cited in bone health guideline recommendations. Design: Cross-sectional Setting: 47 global bone health guidelines with vitamin D and/or calcium recommendations for adults aged 40 years and above Participants: The evidence cited to support the recommendations was extracted by two independent reviewers and classified by type of recommendation, article characteristics, study design, types of funding sources and conflict of interest (COI) disclosure and direction of study conclusions. Results: Of 156 articles cited to support the bone health recommendations, 120 (77%) disclosed a funding source, and 43 (28%) declared that at least one author had a COI. Compared with articles with non-commercial or no funding source, those funded by commercial sponsors tended to have a study conclusion favourable towards vitamin D/calcium [RR (95% CI): 1.32 (0.94, 1.87), p = 0.16], but the association was not statistically significant (Fisher’s exact test). Compared to those with a COI disclosure statement, articles with missing or unclear COI disclosure were more likely to have favourable conclusions [1.56 (1.05, 2.31), p = 0.017] (Fisher’s exact test). Conclusion: In the evidence underpinning a sample of global bone health guidelines, COI disclosure was low and studies with missing or unclear COI disclosures were more likely to have favourable study conclusions than those with disclosures, suggesting a need for greater transparency of COI in bone health guidelines.

show abstract

“…Discordant disclosure has been observed in authors of journal articles within the fields of orthopedics, otolaryngology, cardiac surgery, hematology, pulmonology, sports medicine, plastic surgery, vascular surgery, and general surgery. [75][76][77][78][79] Similarly, voluntary disclosures were found to be incomplete or inaccurate at national meetings of gynecologic surgeons, 80 spine surgeons, 81,82 orthopedic surgeons, 83,84 and trauma physicians, 85 though some authors have attributed discordant disclosures to inaccuracies rather than definite underreporting. 86 Of course, this list likely represents only a fraction of the fields in which disclosures at national meetings are incomplete or inaccurate.…”

Section: Discordant Disclosurementioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Issues Pertaining to Conflicts of Interest Between Neurologists and the Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Industries

Robbins

2018

Semin Neurol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A conflict of interest (COI) exists when a physician's professional responsibilities are compromised by personal or financial relationships. COIs between physicians and the pharmaceutical or medical device industry (Industry) are common. Collaborations with Industry have many potential benefits, but also raise potential ethical pitfalls. Industry-related COIs have widespread influence on medical education, research, and clinical practice, and therefore have profound implications for the integrity of the field of medicine. Full disclosure is an important step toward mitigating COI but does not redress subconscious accompanying biases. I review the spectrum of potential COI faced by physicians, with a focus on the ethics surrounding the relationship between neurologists and Industry. Other financial and nonfinancial COIs that influence neurologists and nonindividual entities, such as academic institutions, medical journals, and professional societies, are also discussed. Solutions ranging from disclosure to avoidance and recusal are briefly considered.

show abstract

Comparison of Conflicts of Interest among Published Hernia Researchers Self-Reported with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database

Cited by 22 publications

References 16 publications

Under-reported relationship: a comparative study of pharmaceutical industry and patient organisation payment disclosures in the UK (2012–2016)

Under-reported relationship: a comparative study of pharmaceutical industry and patient organisation payment disclosures in the UK (2012–2016)

Disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest in evidence underpinning vitamin D and calcium recommendations in bone health guidelines

Ethical Issues Pertaining to Conflicts of Interest Between Neurologists and the Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Industries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About