Conflicts of interest statements on biomedical papers

Lewison, Grant; Sullivan, Richard

doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1507-0

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, as pointed by Wang and Shapira (2011), not all the funding results are published, since some outcomes are concealed or revealed only through patents or other technological developments. Another limitation is that, in WoS, funders are obtained from the acknowledgments section of articles, which sometimes includes institutions mentioned in the statements of conflicts of interest that can be wrongly considered as funding sources (Lewison and Sullivan 2015).…”

Section: Limitations and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public–private interactions reflected through the funding acknowledgements

Morillo

2016

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Partnership between the public and private sectors has been studied using different methodologies; among them, scientific articles offer an objective way to quantify and assess some of these public-private interactions. The present paper takes advantage of the funding acknowledgements (FA) section included in WoS articles written in English and studies some features of the funded research, such as impact and collaboration. For this purpose, articles with Spain in the address field are selected and retrieved (years 2008-2013), dividing them in two sets: articles with or without FA. Besides, given the large volume of items, the study is focused on groups of articles of each area selected by stratified random sampling. Additionally, those items with a FA section are analysed to identify three types of funding sources: only public, only private, or both sectors. The results show differences between areas in terms of presence of FA and types of funding sectors. On the one hand, in general, articles funded by both the public and private sectors present the best impact, as well as the highest number of authors and organisations. On the other hand, there are important variations in impact and collaboration between areas depending on types of funding sectors. Thus, items funded by both the public and private sectors show the highest significant impact in Clinical Medicine, Life Sciences and Physics, having also greater international collaboration, in most areas, than articles funded only by the public sector. Finally, some limitations of this study are identified and some recommendations for funders and authors are offered.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public–private interactions reflected through the funding acknowledgements

Morillo

2016

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These identified the funder, its sector (government, private-non-profit, industry or international), and country. Any research funding organizations mentioned in a conflict of interest statement were excluded [12] because they had only paid for work other than that described in the paper. We assumed that government and private-non-profit sources only supported research in their own country, and used a double fractionation procedure to assign credit for the funding of a country's papers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

European diabetes research and its funding, 2002–2013

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim This study examined the outputs of research papers in diabetes from 31 European countries between 2002 and 2013, and their funding.Methods Diabetes research papers in the Web of Science were identified by means of a filter based on journals and title words. For 2009-2013 papers, the funders were coded to show their sector and nationality.Results Europe published 40 547 diabetes papers in the 12 years between 2002 and 2013. Denmark, Sweden and Finland published the most relative to their wealth, but the UK published the most absolutely despite an apparently low burden (as measured by disability-adjusted life years). The largest source of funding was government (30%), followed by the non-profit sector (18%) and industry (13%). The European Commission supported 2.7% of papers, but more in Latvia (33%) and Estonia (16%). Based on an estimated cost per paper of €260 000, the annual research expenditure in Europe was approximately €986 million in 2013.Conclusions The European diabetes burden in disability-adjusted life years increased by one third between 2002 and 2012, but its output of research papers has decreased from 44% to 36% of the world total. This decrease needs to be reviewed in the context of European non-communicable disease research policy. Diabet. Med. 34, 1354-1360 Introduction Diabetes represents a major global health problem and, together with other non-communicable diseases, has led to a major policy document on its prevention and control from the World Health Organization (WHO) [1]. Worldwide, 1.5 million deaths were directly associated with diabetes in 2012, and 2.2 million more were related to high blood glucose [2]. In the European region in 2015, almost 60 million people had diabetes. Based on data from the WHO website on the disease burden for the 31 European countries (EUR31; the 28 European Union Member States, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) between 2002 and 2012, the average percentage of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from diabetes increased from 2.0% to 2.6% [3]. In 2012, the figure ranged from 1.3% in the UK to 4.9% in Cyprus. Countries in the Mediterranean and Southern Europe (Portugal 4.3%, Spain 3.7%, and Italy 3.5%) had the highest levels, except for Greece (2.2%). Besides the UK, the lowest percentages occurred in Romania, Lithuania and Finland (1.8%) and Iceland (2.0%).This paper presents the results of a bibliometric study of outputs (i.e. scientific papers) and funding for diabetes research from 2002 to 2013. The study, of the EUR31 countries, was performed as part of the Mapping NonCommunicable Diseases (NCD) project, funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme. The aim was to map research activity and assist research funding organizations such as the Commission to identify gaps and overlaps in the current state of diabetes research, and point out areas on which to focus future strategies. Previous studies that have applied a bibliometric approach to the outputs of diabetes research have mainly focused on a specific type of diab...

show abstract

“…This is a separate concern to that expressed in our earlier paper on conflicts of interest, [9] where individual authors report receipt of money from companies for unrelated work. Research that acknowledges commercial funding has a clear bias to positive results, [10] so it is important for readers to be able to discount the claims made if a trial has been sponsored by a company.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…As discussed previously, [9] some of the funders listed in the FU column in the downloaded file were false positives because the companies had paid one or more of the authors for unrelated work. This means that for some of the papers the FU entry has to be redacted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Web of Science Research Funding Information: Methodology for its use in Analysis and Evaluation

Begum

Lewison

2017

JSCIRES

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explains the problems associated with using the funding information on the Web of Science (WoS) to determine how research has been funded. Funding sources have been added to the WoS as searchable fields since late 2008. However a funding source can have several different names and can appear with different conventions for abbreviation, punctuation and format. We needed to have one name for each source and it was convenient for names to have the same format. We therefore use a coding system, which is described in detail. It identifies most individual funders, and gives their country and sector (public, private-non-profit, commercial or international). Some of the commercial funders listed are false positives as they have paid the author(s) for unrelated work. In addition, acknowledgements implicit from the addresses also needed to be coded for public, charity and commercial laboratories. These two sets of codes were then combined to permit a detailed analysis of funding for each country by means of two Excel programs.

show abstract

Conflicts of interest statements on biomedical papers

Cited by 16 publications

References 22 publications

Public–private interactions reflected through the funding acknowledgements

Public–private interactions reflected through the funding acknowledgements

European diabetes research and its funding, 2002–2013

Web of Science Research Funding Information: Methodology for its use in Analysis and Evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About