New England Journal of Medicine reviews controversial stent study

Cohen, Deborah; Brown, Ed

doi:10.1136/bmj.m878

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, included RCTs lacked consistency in reporting periprocedural MI at nonindex procedure, not allowing aggregate data analysis at longer follow-up. Despite different MI definitions were used and controversy arises about the EXCEL definition, 37 our data were consistent when EXEL trial data were excluded at leave-1-out sensitivity analysis. Finally, the 5-year follow-up does not necessarily suffice for clinical significance given that it is much lower than the average expected life expectancy of these patients.…”

Section: Study Limitationssupporting

confidence: 61%

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft for left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis

Gallo

Blitzer

Laforgia

et al. 2022

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Study Limitationssupporting

confidence: 61%

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft for left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis

Gallo

Blitzer

Laforgia

et al. 2022

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…et al, 2019. The conflict of interest had influenced the researchers to heavily manipulate the data so that it appeared that the stents were safer, when in fact they posed an 80% higher risk of heart attack (Cohen & Brown, 2020). This illustrates that the harm deriving from financial interest can radiate throughout medical practice to inflict harm on larger numbers of patients.…”

Section: Interests Linked To Patient Referralsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Materiality of conflict of interest in informed consent to medical treatment in the United Kingdom

O’Neill

2021

Ethics & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The UK Supreme Court ruling of Montgomery v Lanarkshire clarified that in obtaining informed consent to treatment, practitioners are under a duty to inform patients of material risks. Traditionally such risk has pertained to the clinical risks inherent to treatment. In examining empirical and judicial evidence, this paper makes the case for disclosure of potent financial interests; with potency relating to those interests likely to have greatest influence over practice. The paper explores how financial interests may detrimentally influence practice patterns and how non-disclosure of such interests may be linked to the erosion of patient trust and subsequent disinclination to consent to treatment. Judicial notions of material risk are explored, and the conclusion reached that they offer a broader interpretation of disclosable risk compared to current UK GMC guidance. It is anticipated that empirical evidence could be used by the courts in determining questions of both materiality and causation in cases of negligent non-disclosure of potent financial interests. The paper concludes that there is sufficient reason to surmise that a test case could successfully apply the principles identified therein to establish the materiality of conflict of interest in informed consent to medical treatment.

show abstract

“…31 The New England Journal of Medicine is also conducting an independent review of the EXCEL trial. 32 How Should the EXCEL and NOBLE Trials Impact Clinical Practice?…”

Section: Excel Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%