Shadows Amid Sunshine

Saver, Richard S.

doi:10.1378/chest.13-1719

Cited by 20 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While disclosure of COIs has been the mainstay of managing some of the relationships (particularly with experts), Goldberg has argued that disclosure is at best ineffective, and likely harmful [52]; he called for a more conservative approach of sequestration, i.e. sequestering the relevant parties to the potential relationships.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The intersections of industry with the health research enterprise

Akl¹,

Khamis²

2019

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is increased awareness of the negative impact of large multinational corporations – the ‘industry’ – on public health. These corporations have established different types of relationships with a number of actors in the field of health research. This Commentary explores the different types of relationships between the industry and the actors of health research, how they intersect with the different research steps, and how these relationships allow the industry to exert influence. The types of relationships discussed consist of funding of research, direct relationships with the actors of research (namely advocacy groups, funding agencies, experts, professional organisations, regulatory agencies and health practitioners), and the influencing research standards. The potentially influenced research steps either precede the research (i.e. the prioritisation of research question), relate to it directly (i.e. its planning, conduct, reporting, dissemination and evaluation), or build on it (i.e. regulatory approval, integration into guidelines and adoption into practice). In conclusion, the industry has successfully fostered relationships with almost every actor of the health research enterprise and is using these relationships to influence the different steps of health research. The degree of influence the industry is having on health research calls for more work on managing the relationships discussed herein.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The intersections of industry with the health research enterprise

Akl¹,

Khamis²

2019

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As many as 73 additional companies/author were identified by examining the acknowledgments section, the CoI section, or the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) CoI form [ 1 ] and these are not currently included among the fifteen with detailed monetary values and supported activities in PDD. We are cautiously optimistic that future projects of this type will benefit from laws like the Physician Payments Sunshine Act which will mandate more widespread disclosures and with a very low threshold [ 24 , 25 ]. Importantly, even quantifying the number of companies an author is associated with is impeded by innocuous sounding foundation names that are listed in the acknowledgments section (e.g., the Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention, and Treatment) which are largely fronts for commercial entities [ 26 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the majority of authors were eligible to have a PDD entry, PDD does not include authors located outside of the U.S. or PhD scientists. Unfortunately, even the Sunshine Act currently overlooks non-physician investigators [ 25 ]. It is also noteworthy that the manuscripts of four of the top ten highest compensated authors provide information from companies that are indexed by PDD but were not identified with a PDD search.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Quantitative Analysis of Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest in Pharmacology Textbooks

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDisclosure of potential conflicts of interest (CoI) is a standard practice for many biomedical journals but not for educational materials. The goal of this investigation was to determine whether the authors of pharmacology textbooks have undisclosed financial CoIs and to identify author characteristics associated with CoIs.Methods and FindingsThe presence of potential CoIs was evaluated by submitting author names (N = 403; 36.3% female) to a patent database (Google Scholar) as well as a database that reports on the compensation ($USD) received from 15 pharmaceutical companies (ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs). All publications (N = 410) of the ten highest compensated authors from 2009 to 2013 and indexed in Pubmed were also examined for disclosure of additional companies that the authors received research support, consulted, or served on speaker’s bureaus. A total of 134 patents had been awarded (Maximum = 18/author) to textbook authors. Relative to DiPiro’s Pharmacotherapy: A Pathophysiologic Approach, contributors to Goodman and Gilman’s Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics and Katzung’s Basic and Clinical Pharmacology were more frequently patent holders (OR = 6.45, P < .0005). Female authors were less likely than males to have > 1 patent (OR = 0.15, P < .0005). A total of $2,411,080 USD (28.3% for speaking, 27.0% for consulting, and 23.9% for research), was received by 53 authors (Range = $299 to $310,000/author). Highly compensated authors were from multiple fields including oncology, psychiatry, neurology, and urology. The maximum number of additional companies, not currently indexed in the Dollars for Docs database, for which an author had potential CoIs was 73.ConclusionsFinancial CoIs are common among the authors of pharmacology and pharmacotherapy textbooks. Full transparency of potential CoIs, particularly patents, should become standard procedure for future editions of educational materials in pharmacology.

show abstract

“…The public disclosure of individual physician payment data has been advocated as a powerful tool to control health care costs and improve the delivery of care. However, this novel form of transparency suffers from multiple limitations that must be underscored [11].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Apart from the criticism of invading clinicians' privacy, the true value of the database remains unproven given, among other reasons, uncertainty about who the intended recipients are and their ability to use the disclosed information effectively [10]. Limited data exist concerning the effects of financial conflicts in health care decision-making generally and it remains subject to conflicting interpretations [11]. Lessons learned from comparable state-based and manufacturer databases would suggest that interest could well be limited and utilization challenging [12,13].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%