Editorial boards of dermatology journals and their potential financial conflict of interest

Updyke, Katelyn M; Wei, Ning; Claire, Chelsea St; Schlager, Emma; Knabel, Michael; Leader, Nicholas; Sacotte, R.; Dunnick, Cory A.; Dellavalle, Robert P.

doi:10.5070/d3248041137

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Industry-physician interaction is common in all medical specialties, and dermatology is no exception [ 4 ]. Previous studies have examined conflicts of interests among authors of dermatology textbooks, dermatology patient advocacy organizations, dermatology clinical practice guideline authors, and clinical trials in dermatology [ 5 - 9 ]. Under the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, a part of the Affordable Care Act, payments and other transfers of value by manufacturers and group-purchasing organizations to physicians are reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflicts of Interest in “Throwaway” Dermatology Publications: Analysis of the Open Payments Database

Roman¹,

Elpern²

2021

JMIR Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Dermatology journals, periodicals, editorials, and news magazines are influential resources that are not uniformly regulated and subject to influence from the pharmaceutical industry. This study evaluates industry payments to physician editorial board members of common dermatology publications, including “throwaway” publications. Objective The aim of this study was to characterize the extent and nature of industry payments to editorial board members of different dermatologic publications in order to ascertain differences in payments between different types of publications. Methods A list of editorial board members was compiled from a collection of clinical dermatology publications received over a 3-month period. Data from the Open Payments database from 2013 to 2019 were collected, and analysis of payments data was performed. Results Ten publications were evaluated, and payments data for 466 physicians were analyzed. The total compensation across all years was US $75,622,369.64. Consulting, services other than consulting, and travel or lodging payments constituted most of the payments. A fraction of dermatologists received the majority of payments. The top payers were manufacturers of biologic medications. Payment amounts were higher for throwaway publications compared to peer-reviewed journals. Conclusions Editorial board members of dermatology publications received substantial payments from the pharmaceutical industry. A minority of physicians receive the lion’s share of payments from industry. “Throwaway” publications have more financial conflict of interest than do peer-reviewed journals. The impact of these conflicts of interest on patient care, physicians' practice patterns, and patient perception of physicians is noteworthy.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflicts of Interest in “Throwaway” Dermatology Publications: Analysis of the Open Payments Database

Roman¹,

Elpern²

2021

JMIR Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Institutional Responsibilities for Research Integrity

Redman

2023

Reconstructing Research Integrity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Revisiting selected ethical aspects of current clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice

Schondorf-Gleicher

Mochizuki

Orvieto

et al. 2022

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethical considerations are central to all medicine though, likely, nowhere more essential than in the practice of reproductive endocrinology and infertility. Through in vitro fertilization (IVF), this is the only field in medicine involved in creating human life. IVF has, indeed, so far led to close to 10 million births worldwide. Yet, relating to substantial changes in clinical practice of IVF, the medical literature has remained surprisingly quiet over the last two decades. Major changes especially since 2010, however, call for an updated commentary. Three key changes deserve special notice: Starting out as a strictly medical service, IVF in recent years, in efforts to expand female reproductive lifespans in a process given the term “planned” oocyte cryopreservation, increasingly became more socially motivated. The IVF field also increasingly underwent industrialization and commoditization by outside financial interests. Finally, at least partially driven by industrialization and commoditization, so-called add-ons, the term describing mostly unvalidated tests and procedures added to IVF since 2010, have been held responsible for worldwide declines in fresh, non-donor live birthrates after IVF, to levels not seen since the mid-1990s. We here, therefore, do not offer a review of bioethical considerations regarding IVF as a fertility treatment, but attempt to point out ethical issues that arose because of major recent changes in clinical IVF practice.

show abstract

Editorial boards of dermatology journals and their potential financial conflict of interest

Abstract: Table 2. The top ten physician-editors who received the highest amount of general payments during the year 2016 and their affiliated journals PhysicianTotal General Payments Received in 2016

Cited by 4 publications

References 19 publications

Conflicts of Interest in “Throwaway” Dermatology Publications: Analysis of the Open Payments Database

Conflicts of Interest in “Throwaway” Dermatology Publications: Analysis of the Open Payments Database

Institutional Responsibilities for Research Integrity

Revisiting selected ethical aspects of current clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About