Meaningful and Accurate Disclosure of Conflict of Interest at the ASTRO National Meeting: A Need for Reassessment of Current Policies

Abstract

Purpose: Conflict of interest (COI) disclosure is essential to research integrity. The average reading comprehension in English is 3.8 words per second (wps). This study examines presenters at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) national meeting over a recent 3-year period to determine whether disclosure is presented accurately and in a manner that allows the audience to comprehend the content. Methods: We examined videos of presentations as well as slides from 2014 to 2016 from the ASTRO virtual meeting, noting whether a COI slide was presented, the duration the slide was visible, and the number of disclosures. Disclosures were cross-referenced for discrepancies with the publicly reported Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. Using a cutoff of 4 wps, we noted how many presentations were presented at speeds of ≤ 4 wps and > 4 wps. Results: The final data set consisted of 401 presentations delivered by 364 presenters. Using a threshold of 4 wps, 34.0% of presenters had COI slides shown too fast for the average audience to comprehend. Moreover, 16.3% of US physicians incorrectly underreported industry funding received. Of these presentations with discrepancies, 32.6% did not have a COI slide, 39.5% failed to disclose any COI, 27.9% partially disclosed COIs, and 11.6% contained multiple discrepancies. The number of wps were correlated with having a discrepancy on multivariable regression ( P = .046; odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.19). Conclusion: A substantial minority of presentations at ASTRO lack meaningful disclosure, and a surprising number incorrectly reported COIs. Additional guidance may be needed to promote more meaningful and accurate disclosure of COIs at major national meetings in oncology.

Tip of the Iceberg? Country- and Company-Level Analysis of Drug Company Payments for Research and Development in Europe

“… 70 , 71 However, their impact on research results is unclear, with one study finding no significant relationship between company-funded grants and clinical trial outcomes. 52 Further, sometimes undisclosed research payments are more common than undisclosed general payments, 72 but the opposite has also been observed. 55 , 57 , 73 …”

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest Among Speakers, Moderators, Presenters, and Discussants at National Trauma Meetings

“…5 Previous studies have found discrepancies between payments reported in the OPD and self-reported COIs. 16,20 The OPD could improve COI accuracy to promote integrity, transparency, and honesty. Studies examining the COI disclosures of published surgeons in relation to reported payments in the OPD have proposed the implementation of journal-/conference-specific guidelines to prevent confusion regarding what constitutes COIs.…”

Professional Relationships With Industry

“…The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (33) and most professional medical societies (eg, ACOG and the American Society of Clinical Oncology [34,35]) have disclosure policies for investigators considering publication or presentation of research findings. Despite these disclosure policies, conflicts are likely underreported and misreported (36)(37)(38). In one recent prominent case, a senior physician-scientist received millions of dollars of personal income from industry sponsors of his clinical research and failed to disclose this tie to industry in "dozens" of high-profile publications (39).…”