The relation between publication rate and financial conflict of interest among physician authors of high-impact oncology publications: an observational study

Kaestner, Victoria; Edmiston, Jonathan; Prasad, Vinay

doi:10.9778/cmajo.20170095

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings are consistent with research showing similar associations between industry payments and scholarly impact in other specialties, including otolaryngology, 6 plastic surgery, 4 neurosurgery, 5 transplant surgery, 3 and oncology. 7 While research in ophthalmology has previously shown that H-index varies by academic rank and fellowship, 17 our study is the first to investigate the impact of industry funding on scholarly impact. In addition to confirming these differences in scholarly impact by academic rank and subspecialty, our analysis also extends these findings to show that industry funding modulates these associations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…payments and research output, revealing a connection between receiving payments and increased scholarly impact. [3][4][5][6][7] In the field of ophthalmology, industry payments have been associated with distinct patterns in prescribing of antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, prompting questions about the impact of these payments on ophthalmologists. 8,9 To broaden the understanding of industry payments to ophthalmologists, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of Open Payments data for every academic ophthalmologist in the United States, examining associations between industry support and scholarly impact.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Association between Industry Payments and Scholarly Impact among Academic Ophthalmologists

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this article is to examine the association between industry payments to ophthalmologists and scholarly impact. Design Retrospective cross-sectional study. Methods All ophthalmology faculty at United States accredited ophthalmology residency programs were included in this study. The main exposure was industry payments to ophthalmologists in 2016, as reported in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database. The primary outcome was Hirsch index (H-index), a measure of scholarly impact. Results Among 1,653 academic ophthalmologists in our study, 1,225 (74%) received industry payments in 2016. We did not observe a difference between the mean H-index of ophthalmologists receiving any industry payments versus those not receiving any payments (p = 0.68). In analysis including only ophthalmologists who received industry payments, H-index differed significantly by payment amount: 12.6 for ophthalmologists receiving less than $100, 12.2 for those receiving $100 to 1,000, 18.8 for those receiving $1,000 to 10,000, 21.3 for those receiving $10,000 to 100,000, and 29.4 for those receiving greater than $100,000 (p < 0.001). Within each academic rank and gender, industry payments greater than $1,000 were associated with a higher H-index (p < 0.05). Conclusions Although our analysis cannot prove causality, we observed a significant association between industry payments and scholarly impact among academic ophthalmologists, even after adjusting for gender, academic rank, and subspecialty. Prospective studies should further evaluate this relationship.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between Industry Payments and Scholarly Impact among Academic Ophthalmologists

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some have tried to prevent this issue by including several studies in their analyses or by partially using observational studies and real‐life data in their economic model; however, none of them have used real‐world data to measure the antipsychotics' efficacy and safety. In addition, there is a known association between positive results in economic studies and industry sponsorship for their own products . Thus, given that only two studies performing economic evaluations were funded by the manufacturers of aripiprazole, this might have directly contributed to the unfavourable result for the drug.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…there is a known association between positive results in economic studies and industry sponsorship for their own products. [33][34][35][36][37][38] Thus,…”

Section: Main Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic evaluations on the use of aripiprazole for patients with schizophrenia: A systematic review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is known and objectives: Schizophrenia is a serious mental disorder and is associated with substantial economic and social burden. Cost-effectiveness analysis is important to assess the costs of different therapeutic options. However, there is a lack of information on the reporting quality of economic evaluations, cost drivers, as well as updated data focused on aripiprazole, an antipsychotic drug commonly prescribed in schizophrenia. This study evaluates and summarizes the evidence of economic evaluations of the use of aripiprazole in schizophrenia. In addition, we aimed to identify cost drivers and critically assess the reporting qualities of these studies. Methods: A comprehensive literature research was conducted using PubMed, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, CEA Registry and LILACS databases dated until March 2018. Full economic analyses of aripiprazole in schizophrenia that were based Identify the study as an economic evaluation or use more specific terms such as 'cost-effectiveness analysis', and describe the interventions compared 8 (47.0%

show abstract

“…However, further analysis must be extended to validate these findings and if proven some policies must be framed to provide alternative incentives to physicians who could not make industry payments. 240 The analysis of the differences in the guidelines for the approval of anticancer drugs by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCNN) and FDA indicated that the NCCN recommendations are weak. It was observed that the NCCN defends the coverage of expensive, toxic cancer drugs based on weak indication.…”

Section: Cost Of Anticancer Drugs Approved By the Fdamentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancer drug development: The missing links

Kunnumakkara

Bordoloi

Sailo

et al. 2019

Exp Biol Med (Maywood)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although better science and technology has been linked with better health care, however, reality is much different. Although America and most of Europe are equipped with most advanced science and technology, paradoxically cancer incidence is highest in the world. This indicates that science and technology alone is not sufficient in treating diseases like cancer. It is also now well recognized that more than 95% of the drugs/compounds that kill either cancer cells in culture or regress the tumors in animals, fail in phase I clinical trials in humans, indicating that most pre-clinical models of cancer are inadequate. In addition, most of the anticancer drugs that are approved by the regulatory agencies such as FDA either has no effect on the overall survival of the cancer patient or may provide an increase in few months in overall survival. This is despite the fact that most targeted therapies that are currently available are highly expensive; thus suggesting the lack of affordability. This review is meant to focus on some of these problems in detail and then provide potential solutions since most cancers are caused by multiple genes, and thus multi-targeted therapies are needed such as natural products which are inexpensive, safe and have been used for thousands of years for both prevention and treatment of cancer. Impact statement The success rate for cancer drugs which enter into phase 1 clinical trials is utterly less. Why the vast majority of drugs fail is not understood but suggests that pre-clinical studies are not adequate for human diseases. In 1975, as per the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, pharmaceutical industries expended 100 million dollars for research and development of the average FDA approved drug. By 2005, this figure had more than quadrupled, to $1.3 billion. In order to recover their high and risky investment cost, pharmaceutical companies charge more for their products. However, there exists no correlation between drug development cost and actual sale of the drug. This high drug development cost could be due to the reason that all patients might not respond to the drug. Hence, a given drug has to be tested in large number of patients to show drug benefits and obtain significant results.

show abstract

The relation between publication rate and financial conflict of interest among physician authors of high-impact oncology publications: an observational study

Cited by 12 publications

References 31 publications

Association between Industry Payments and Scholarly Impact among Academic Ophthalmologists

Association between Industry Payments and Scholarly Impact among Academic Ophthalmologists

Economic evaluations on the use of aripiprazole for patients with schizophrenia: A systematic review

Cancer drug development: The missing links

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About