Dataset Information

Disclosing conflicts of interest in German publications concerning health services research.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The influence of the pharmaceutical industry and other stakeholders on medical science has been increasingly criticised. When dealing with conflicts of interest in scientific publications it is important to ensure the best possible transparency. The objective of this work is to examine the disclosure practice of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest in German language publications concerning health services research for the first time.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search in the PubMed data base using the MeSH term "health services research". The review was conducted on July 10, 2006, setting the limits "dates: published in the last 2 years" and "languages: German" (only articles with abstracts). 124 articles in 31 magazines were found. In the magazines the instructions for authors were examined as to whether a statement on conflicts of interest is expected--and if, in which form. Regarding the articles in the journals which require a statement, we examined whether the statement is explicitly published. The results are descriptively represented.

Results

13 magazines (42%) do not require any statement on conflicts of interest, whereas 18 journals (58%) expect a statement. Two of these 18 magazines refer explicitly to the uniform requirements of the International Committee of the Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE); the remaining 16 magazines give differently accentuated instructions on how to disclose conflicts of interest, whereby the focus is primarily on financial issues. A statement on conflicts of interest is explicitly published in 11 of the 71 articles (15%) which are found in the magazines that require a statement with the submission of a manuscript. Related to the total number of included articles, this means that the reader explicitly receives information on potential conflicts of interest in 9% of the cases (11 of 124 articles). Statements of others that are involved in the publication process (reviewers, editors) are not available in any of the articles examined.

Conclusion

A better sensitization for possible conflicts of interest in German publications concerning health services research is necessary. We suggest tightening the criteria for disclosure in the instructions for authors in the scientific journals. Among other things the equivalent consideration of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest as well as the obligatory publication of the statements should be part of good practice.

SUBMITTER: Schneider N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1905913 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe tobacco control community has raised some concerns about whether studies on electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) published in scientific journals hide conflicts of interest (COI) and whether such reports are biased. This study assessed potential COI in the e-cigarette scientific literature.MethodsCross-sectional study was conducted on e-cigarette publications indexed in PubMed up to August 2014. We extracted information about the authors (affiliations, location, etc.), publication characteristics (type, topic, subject, etc.), results and conclusions, presence of a COI statement, and funding by and/or financial ties to pharmaceutical, tobacco, and/or e-cigarette companies. An algorithm to determine the COI disclosure status was created based on the information in the publication. Prevalence ratios (PRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to identify associations with COI disclosure, controlling for several independent variables.ResultsOf the 404 publications included in the analysis, 37.1% (n=150) had no COI disclosure statement, 38.6% declared no COI, 13.4% declared potential COI with pharmaceutical companies, 3.0% with tobacco companies, and 10.6% with e-cigarette companies. The conclusions in publications with COI, which were mainly tied to pharmaceutical companies, were more likely to be favourable to e-cigarette use (PR=2.23; 95% CI: 1.43-3.46). Publications that supported the use of e-cigarettes for both harm reduction (PR=1.81; 95%CI: 1.14-2.89) and smoking cessation (PR=2.02; 95% CI: 1.26-3.23) were more likely to have conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarettes.ConclusionsOne-third of the publications reporting studies on e-cigarettes did not have a COI disclosure statement, and this proportion was even higher in news articles, editorials and other types of publications. Papers with conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarette use were more likely to have COI. Journal editors and reviewers should consider evaluating publications, including funding sources, to determine whether the results and conclusions may be biased.

Project description:BackgroundThe requirements of the health policy and services journals for authors to report their financial and non-financial conflicts of interest (COI) are unclear. The present article aims to assess the requirements of health policy and services journals for authors to disclose their financial and non-financial COIs.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study of journals listed by the Web of Science under the category of 'Health Policy and Services'. We reviewed the 'Instructions for Authors' on the journals' websites and then simulated the submission of a manuscript to obtain any additional relevant information made available during that step. We abstracted data in duplicate and independently using a standardised form.ResultsOut of 72 eligible journals, 67 (93%) had a COI policy. A minority of policies described how the disclosed COIs of authors would impact the editorial process (34%). None of the policies had clear-cut criteria for rejection based on the content of the disclosure. Approximately a fifth of policies (21%) explicitly stated that inaccurate or incomplete disclosures might lead to manuscript rejection or retraction. No policy described whether the journal would verify the accuracy or completeness of authors' disclosed COIs. Most journals' policies (93%) required the disclosure of at least one form of financial COI. While the majority asked for specification of source of payment (71%), a minority asked for the amount (18%). Overall, 81% of policies explicitly required disclosure of non-financial COIs.ConclusionA majority of health policy and services journal policies required the disclosure of authors' financial and non-financial COIs, but few required details on disclosed COIs. Health policy journals should provide specific definitions and instructions for disclosing non-financial COIs. A framework providing clear typology and operational definitions of the different types of COIs will facilitate both their disclosure by authors and reviewers and their assessment and management by the editorial team and the readers.

Project description:IntroductionLittle is known about the accuracy of societal publications (e.g. press releases, internet postings or professional journals) that are based on scientific work. This study investigates a) inconsistencies between scientific peer-reviewed health services research (HSR) publications and non-scientific societal publications and b) replication of reporting inadequacies from these scientific publications to corresponding societal publications.MethodsA sample of HSR publications was drawn from 116 publications authored in 2016 by thirteen Dutch HSR institutions. Societal publications corresponding to scientific publications were identified through a systematic internet search. We conducted a qualitative, directed content analysis on societal publications derived from the scientific publications to assess both reporting inadequacies and determine inconsistencies. Descriptive frequencies were calculated for all variables. Odds ratios were used to investigate whether inconsistencies in societal publications were less likely when the first scientific author was involved.ResultsWe identified 43 scientific and 156 societal publications. 94 societal publications (60.3%), (associated with 32 scientific publications (74.4%)) contained messages that were inconsistent with the scientific work. We found reporting inadequacies in 22 scientific publications (51.2%). In 45 societal publications (28.9%), we found replications of these reporting inadequacies. The likelihood of inconsistencies between scientific and societal publications did not differ when the latter explicitly involved the first scientific author, (OR = 1.44, CI: 0.76-2.74); were published on the institute's or funder's website, (OR = 1.32, CI: 0.57-3.06); published with no involvement of a scientific author, (OR = 0.52, CI: 0.25-1.07).ConclusionTo improve societal publications, one should examine both the consistency with scientific research publications and ways to prevent replication of scientific reporting inadequacies. HSR institutions, funders, and scientific and societal publication platforms should invest in a supportive publication culture to further incentivise the responsible and skilled involvement of researchers in writing both scientific and societal publications.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report.MethodsWe conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses.ResultsEighty percent of systematic reviews included authors' COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document.ConclusionA fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both.

Project description:ObjectivesExplore the occurrence and nature of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research (HSR) publications authored by researchers from HSR institutions in the Netherlands.DesignIn a joint effort to assure the overall quality of HSR publications in the Netherlands, 13 HSR institutions in the Netherlands participated in this study. Together with these institutions, we constructed and validated an assessment instrument covering 35 possible QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions. Two reviewers independently assessed a random sample of 116 HSR articles authored by researchers from these institutions published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals in 2016.SettingNetherlands, 2016.Sample116 international peer-reviewed HSR publications.Main outcome measuresMedian number of QRPs per publication, the percentage of publications with observed QRP frequencies, occurrence of specific QRPs and difference in total number of QRPs by methodological approach, type of research and study design.ResultsWe identified a median of six QRPs per publication out of 35 possible QRPs. QRPs occurred most frequently in the reporting of implications for practice, recommendations for practice, contradictory evidence, study limitations and conclusions based on the results and in the context of the literature. We identified no differences in total number of QRPs in papers based on different methodological approach, type of research or study design.ConclusionsGiven the applied nature of HSR, both the severity of the identified QRPs, and the recommendations for policy and practice in HSR publications warrant discussion. We recommend that the HSR field further define and establish its own scientific norms in publication practices to improve scientific reporting and strengthen the impact of HSR. The results of our study can serve as an empirical basis for continuous critical reflection on the reporting of messages and conclusions.