Does industry funding mean more publications for subspecialty academic plastic surgeons?

Ruan, Qing; Cohen, Justin B.; Baek, Yoonji; Bletsis, Patrick P.; Celestin, Arthur R.; Epstein, Sherise; Bucknor, Alexandra; Lee, Bernard T.

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2017.12.025

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…27 Industry funding is an important part of academia and researchers rely on its financial support to carry out studies. 28,29 While these funding sources are often given without stipulation, some experts contend their existence may lead authors to form biases in favor of their benefactor. 30,31 By fully disclosing COIs, authors allow readers to critically evaluate their work for any subconscious biases their COIs may add.…”

Section: Favorability Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to note that the existence of either a COI should not be taken as grievances toward an author. The American Urological Association (AUA) acknowledges this within their COI disclosure form stating, “the existence of an actual or apparent COI does not imply fault or wrongdoing on the part of an individual.” 27 Industry funding is an important part of academia and researchers rely on its financial support to carry out studies 28,29 . While these funding sources are often given without stipulation, some experts contend their existence may lead authors to form biases in favor of their benefactor 30,31 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Association between author conflicts of interest and industry‐sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Authors' conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship have been shown to influence study outcomes. Objective: We aimed to determine whether author conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship influenced the nature of results and conclusions of systematic reviews focusing on treatment interventions for erectile dysfunction. Materials and methods: We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on erectile dysfunction treatments published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. Authors' conflicts of interest were collected from the systematic reviews' disclosure statements. These disclosures were verified using the information provided by the Open Payments, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, and US Patent and Trademark Office databases and from previously published disclosure statements.Results: Our study included 24 systematic reviews authored by 138 authors. Nineteen authors (13.8%) were found to have conflicts of interest (disclosed, undisclosed, or both). No authors completely disclosed all conflicts. Nine reviews (37.5%) contained at least one author with conflicts of interest; of which eight reported narrative results favoring the treatment group, and seven reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 15 (62.5%) reviews without a conflicted author, 11 reported results favoring the treatment group, and 12 reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Discussion:The results and conclusions of systematic reviews for erectile dysfunction treatments did not appear to be influenced by authors who reported conflicts of interest. However, our search algorithm relied on the US-based Open Payments database and a large percentage of reviews in our study were produced by authors with international affiliations. Our study results underscore the difficulties in conducting such analyses.

show abstract

Section: Favorability Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between author conflicts of interest and industry‐sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, associate professors are still in the process of launching their career. As research funding can positively influence scholarship [29] and therefore plays an important role in promotion, associate professors may be more aggressive in negotiation. Whereas assistant professors, although eager to create a reputation, may be less successful in obtaining sponsorship than associate or full professors.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Follow the money: Investigating gender disparity in industry payments among senior academics and leaders in plastic surgery

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Differences in academic qualifications are cited as the reason behind the documented gender gap in industry sponsorship to academic plastic surgeons. Gendered imbalances in academic metrics narrow among senior academic plastic surgeons. However, it is unknown whether this gender parity translates to industry payments. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of industry payments disbursed to plastic surgeons in 2018. Inclusion criteria encompassed (i) faculty with the rank of professor or a departmental leadership position. Exclusion criteria included faculty (i) who belonged to a speciality besides plastic surgery; (ii) whose gender could not be determined; or (iii) whose name could not be located on the Open Payment Database. Faculty and title were identified using departmental listings of ACGME plastic surgery residency programs. We extracted industry payment data through the Open Payment Database. We also collected details on H-index and time in practice. Statistical analysis included odds ratios (OR) and Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R). Results We identified 316 senior academic plastic surgeons. The cohort was predominately male (88%) and 91% held a leadership role. Among departmental leaders, women were more likely to be an assistant professor (OR 3.9, p = 0.0003) and heads of subdivision (OR 2.1, p = 0.0382) than men. Industry payments were distributed equally to male and female senior plastic surgeons except for speakerships where women received smaller amounts compared to their male counterparts (median payments of $3,675 vs $7,134 for women and men respectively, p<0.0001). Career length and H-index were positively associated with dollar value of total industry payments (R = 0.17, p = 0.0291, and R = 0.14, p = 0.0405, respectively). Conclusion Disparity in industry funding narrows at senior levels in academic plastic surgery. At higher academic levels, industry sponsorship may preferentially fund individuals based on academic productivity and career length. Increased transparency in selection criteria for speakerships is warranted.

show abstract

“…A recent large bibliometric analysis of 935 US-based plastic surgeons revealed that research-specific funding and higher funding amounts significantly correlate with their h -index scores. 29 …”

Section: Traditional Author Impact Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Researcher and Author Impact Metrics: Variety, Value, and Context

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous quantitative indicators are currently available for evaluating research productivity. No single metric is suitable for comprehensive evaluation of the author-level impact. The choice of particular metrics depends on the purpose and context of the evaluation. The aim of this article is to overview some of the widely employed author impact metrics and highlight perspectives of their optimal use. The h-index is one of the most popular metrics for research evaluation, which is easy to calculate and understandable for non-experts. It is automatically displayed on researcher and author profiles on citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science. Its main advantage relates to the combined approach to the quantification of publication and citation counts. This index is increasingly cited globally. Being an appropriate indicator of publication and citation activity of highly productive and successfully promoted authors, the h-index has been criticized primarily for disadvantaging early career researchers and authors with a few indexed publications. Numerous variants of the index have been proposed to overcome its limitations. Alternative metrics have also emerged to highlight ‘societal impact.’ However, each of these traditional and alternative metrics has its own drawbacks, necessitating careful analyses of the context of social attention and value of publication and citation sets. Perspectives of the optimal use of researcher and author metrics is dependent on evaluation purposes and compounded by information sourced from various global, national, and specialist bibliographic databases.

show abstract

Does industry funding mean more publications for subspecialty academic plastic surgeons?

Cited by 19 publications

References 22 publications

Association between author conflicts of interest and industry‐sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction

Association between author conflicts of interest and industry‐sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction

Follow the money: Investigating gender disparity in industry payments among senior academics and leaders in plastic surgery

Researcher and Author Impact Metrics: Variety, Value, and Context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About