Inconsistencies Between Physician-Reported Disclosures at the AAOS Annual Meeting and Industry-Reported Financial Disclosures in the Open Payments Database

Hannon, Charles P.; Chalmers, Peter N.; Carpiniello, Matthew; Cvetanovich, Gregory L.; Cole, Brian J.; Bach, Bernard R.

doi:10.2106/jbjs.15.01119

Cited by 45 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, for all journals, potential editorial conflicts of interest are only identified by editor self report, and previous studies have shown self report of conflicts of interest to have considerable shortcomings. 53 54 55 56 57 While editors may not believe that financial payments from industry influence their judgments, there is evidence to suggest that all individuals are subject to subconscious bias from many kinds of influences that are much more subtle than money, the impact of which may be even more difficult to ascertain and self report. 13 15 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Payments by US pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to US medical journal editors: retrospective observational study

Liu

Bell

Matelski

et al. 2017

BMJ

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To estimate financial payments from industry to US journal editors. Design Retrospective observational study. Setting 52 influential (high impact factor for their specialty) US medical journals from 26 specialties and US Open Payments database, 2014. Participants 713 editors at the associate level and above identified from each journal’s online masthead. Main outcome measures All general payments (eg, personal income) and research related payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to eligible physicians in 2014. Percentages of editors receiving payments and the magnitude of such payments were compared across journals and by specialty. Journal websites were also reviewed to determine if conflict of interest policies for editors were readily accessible. Results Of 713 eligible editors, 361 (50.6%) received some (>$0) general payments in 2014, and 139 (19.5%) received research payments. The median general payment was $11 (£8; €9) (interquartile range $0-2923) and the median research payment was $0 ($0-0). The mean general payment was $28 136 (SD $415 045), and the mean research payment was $37 963 (SD $175 239). The highest median general payments were received by journal editors from endocrinology ($7207, $0-85 816), cardiology ($2664, $0-12 912), gastroenterology ($696, $0-20 002), rheumatology ($515, $0-14 280), and urology ($480, $90-669). For high impact general medicine journals, median payments were $0 ($0-14). A review of the 52 journal websites revealed that editor conflict of interest policies were readily accessible (ie, within five minutes) for 17/52 (32.7%) of journals. Conclusions Industry payments to journal editors are common and often large, particularly for certain subspecialties. Journals should consider the potential impact of such payments on public trust in published research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Payments by US pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to US medical journal editors: retrospective observational study

Liu

Bell

Matelski

et al. 2017

BMJ

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies of payments to orthopaedic surgeons from industry sources based on the OPD were somewhat limited in that they described only the data set, 11,23,27 did not assess accuracy of self-disclosures, 11,21 or assessed the accuracy of nonpublication self-disclosures (eg, disclosures from orthopaedic conferences). 14 Relatively little is known about the accuracy of conflict of interest disclosures among high-impact factor orthopaedic journals. The American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM) has the highest 5-year impact factor in orthopaedic surgery and is distributed to a wide readership involved in various aspects of sports medicine and musculoskeletal health care delivery.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy Between AJSM Author-Reported Disclosures and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database

Boddapati

Nwachukwu

et al. 2018

Am J Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discrepancies exist between disclosures reported by authors publishing in AJSM and what is reported in the OPD. Authors receiving lower total payments, middle authors, and women are more likely to have disclosure discrepancies. Additionally, industry research funding support and ownership interest are most likely to go unreported. However, this study did not assess whether authors with industry payments preferentially published studies pertaining to products from companies from which they received funding. As national registries such as the OPD are increasingly utilized, physicians may benefit from referencing such databases before submitting conflict of interest disclosures.

show abstract

“…11 Even after the passage of the PPSA, 1 study demonstrated a 35% rate of inconsistency when disclosures from presenters at the 2014 AAOS National Meeting were compared with the Open Payments database. 8 Studies also have demonstrated variability between surgeon-reported disclosures and industry-reported payments in the spine and trauma subspecialties. 3,15 A recent study demonstrated that 82.9% of authors publishing in The American Journal of Sports Medicine had discrepancies between disclosures that they self-reported to the journal and industry-reported disclosures found in the Open Payments database.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Closer Look at the Relationship Between Industry and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Surgeons

Hughes

Shin

Albers

et al. 2019

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:A recent study demonstrated that discrepancies exist between disclosures reported by authors publishing in The American Journal of Sports Medicine and disclosures listed in the Physician Payments Sunshine Act–initiated Open Payments database, managed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). However, no study to date has explored the relationship between the biopharmaceutical and device industry (industry) and the membership base of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM).Purpose:To critically examine the relationship between orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons and industry.Study Design:Cross-sectional study.Methods:The publicly available CMS Open Payments database website was accessed to search for sports medicine orthopaedic surgeons in the United States who were members of the AOSSM. Financial data, specifically general, research, and ownership payments for 2015, were recorded for each surgeon. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) disclosures of each surgeon were then obtained. Descriptive statistics and simple proportions were calculated to summarize the collected data, including years in practice and amount of payment. Median values for general payments were compared to provide a more accurate reflection of payments transferred to a “typical” sports medicine surgeon.Results:A total of $58,113,561 in general payments, $3,996,051 in research payments, $72,481,814 in money invested, and $144,552,383 in interest earned from money invested were identified as being paid to 2274 surgeons (all amounts in US$). The distribution of total general payments received was skewed: 10% of surgeons received 95.4% ($55,463,183) of the total general payments. A total of 1433 surgeons had completed, up-to-date AAOS disclosures. Although 44% (635 surgeons) self-reported no financial conflict to the AAOS, the Open Payments database indicated some level of industry support to these surgeons. Unreported general payments totaled $1,393,212, or a median of $561 per surgeon (interquartile range, $10-$200,048).Conclusion:Although orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons received substantial payments from industry, most of the total general payments were given to a small proportion of people. The regional distribution of these payments did not differ significantly. Summary reports of data are largely skewed by outliers and should be interpreted with caution. However, a large percentage of these surgeons failed to reveal industry support of any kind in their AAOS disclosures, including meals and educational funding, demonstrating the importance of transparency and accuracy when completing financial disclosures.

show abstract

Inconsistencies Between Physician-Reported Disclosures at the AAOS Annual Meeting and Industry-Reported Financial Disclosures in the Open Payments Database

Cited by 45 publications

References 27 publications

Payments by US pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to US medical journal editors: retrospective observational study

Payments by US pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to US medical journal editors: retrospective observational study

Accuracy Between AJSM Author-Reported Disclosures and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database

A Closer Look at the Relationship Between Industry and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Surgeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About