Dataset Information

Financial disclosures of authors involved in spine research: an underestimated source of bias.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Reporting financial disclosures has become standard practice in both journal publications and during oral forum at scientific meetings. Despite this, the effect of reporting a financial disclosure of any member of an authorgroup, on the tone of the conclusion of an article has gained little attention. This study was performed to determine what effect reporting a financial disclosure has on the conclusion of an article.

Methods

A literature search for all articles on interspinous devices and cervical disc prostheses, published from January 1st, 2008 until December 1st, 2010 was performed. Financial disclosures were reported, as were funding by commercially active parties. The tone of the conclusions was graded as positive, neutral or negative.

Results

The odds ratio (OR) for a positive conclusion in cases where a financial disclosure was reported was 16.5 (95% CI: 4.7-58.1). Effect modification occurs with the presence of funding by a commercially active party. In cases where a financial disclosure was reported and funding was available for the study, the OR was 1.0 (95% CI: 0.08-12.6), whilst the OR was 33.3 (95%CI: 4.2-262.3) if funding was not provided. This discrepancy is mainly due to the large number of articles with a neutral/negative conclusion if the authors failed to report any financial disclosure and were not funded by a commercially active party.

Conclusions

Reporting a financial disclosure is a potential source of bias. Authors with disclosed financial relationships less often publish articles with a neutral/negative conclusion. This source of bias should certainly be taken into account during the critical appraisal of articles, particularly when the quality of the literature is being assessed.

SUBMITTER: Bartels RH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3389119 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Financial disclosures of authors involved in spine research: an underestimated source of bias.

Bartels Ronald H M A RH Delye Hans H Boogaarts Jeroen J

European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society 20111124 7

<h4>Background</h4>Reporting financial disclosures has become standard practice in both journal publications and during oral forum at scientific meetings. Despite this, the effect of reporting a financial disclosure of any member of an authorgroup, on the tone of the conclusion of an article has gained little attention. This study was performed to determine what effect reporting a financial disclosure has on the conclusion of an article.<h4>Methods</h4>A literature search for all articles on int ...[more]

PMID: 22113533

Similar Datasets

Project description:There is a substantial effort to increase the accuracy of conflicts of interest (COI) reporting, and reduce the influence of COI between physicians and industry, especially as it relates to clinical practice guidelines.We used the newly implemented Open Payments dataset to evaluate the accuracy of COI disclosures of authors of clinical practice guidelines that were either newly published or revised within 2014 and were included in the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) website (maintained by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Authors were considered as having inaccurate COI disclosure if they had not reported all companies from which they had received funds >$5000 in the 12 months preceding the guideline's publication.We identified 223 guidelines that were either newly published (109/223; 48.9%) or revised (114/223; 51.1%) within 2014 and were included in the NGC website. Among the 1329 guideline authors with available Open Payments data, 523 received >$5000 from at least 1 healthcare-associated entity. However, only 56 out of the 523 authors (10.7%) were found to have accurate COI disclosure. The percentage of authors with accurate COI disclosure in revised guidelines was significantly lower than in newly published guidelines (6.8% vs 14.3%; P?<?0.01) and was also found to differ between specialties. Furthermore, authors were less likely to inaccurately disclose "research payments" (37/49, 75.5%) compared to "general payments" (488/559, 87.3%, P?=?0.02) as well as "other/associated research funding" (430/506, 85.0%, P?=?0.08). No statistically significant association was detected between funding amount and disclosure accuracy.The majority of guideline authors lacked significant COIs, but among authors that received significant funds from at least 1 healthcare-associated entity the frequency of accurate disclosure was low. These findings indicate that the current process of disclosing COIs may be suboptimal and a proactive approach should be adopted in order to minimize COI reporting discrepancies. Furthermore, every effort should be undertaken to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the data recorded in the Open Payments database.

Project description:ImportanceRecommendations of clinical guidelines affect physicians' care delivery. Potential bias and undeclared conflicts of interests (COIs) among guideline authors can impact clinical practice decisions.ObjectiveTo assess financial disclosures reported by physician authors of the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Practice Pattern Guidelines compared with those reported by industry to evaluate the disclosures' accuracy.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, all clinical guidelines in the AAO Preferred Practice Patterns (PPP) since 2013 (first year with publicly available industry payment reports) were reviewed on May 1, 2022. Guideline physician authors' name and their reported COI disclosure were extracted from the guideline publication. Payments to physician authors reported by industry were retrieved from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Open Payments database. Physician authors serving on the AAO guideline committee were included.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measure was the accuracy of authors' COIs disclosure. Secondary outcome measures were payments to physician authors reported by industry, the types of payments, and authors' gender.ResultsA total of 24 AAO guidelines released between 2016 and 2020 were included. Per guideline, there was a mean (SD) of 7.83 (2.24) physician authors. After removing 14 nonphysician authors, 188 physician author names remained, including 83 names assigned as women (44.1%) and 105 names assigned as men (55.9%). Authors could be counted multiple times in these 188 names. According to the Open Payments database, industry reported that 112 of 188 physician authors (59.6%) had at least received 1 payment while serving on the guideline committee, with a payment mean (SD) of $29 849.35 ($54 131.56). According to AAO guidelines, 149 authors (79.3%) had no financial disclosures while serving on the guideline committee. Among these 149 authors, most authors (81 [54.4%]) had payments reported by industry on the Open Payments database not disclosed within the guideline reports. Women physicians were paid significantly more than men for total payments (median [IQR] payments, $15 265 [$598.47-$41 104.67] vs $301.48 [$218.85-$14 615.09]; difference, $14 963.52; P = .003).Conclusions and relevanceIndustry reported physician guideline authors to have received significant industry payments, some of which were not disclosed within information of the guidelines. To strengthen author transparency regarding these reported disclosures, the authors may want to review and resolve such potential discrepancies during the review and subsequent publication of guidelines.

Project description:Background There is a high prevalence of financial conflicts of interest (COI) between physicians and industry. Objectives To conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis examining the completeness of self-reported financial COI disclosures by physicians, and identify factors associated with non-disclosure. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO were searched for eligible studies up to April 2020 and supplemented with material identified in the references and citing articles. Data extraction and synthesis Data were independently abstracted by two authors. Data synthesis was performed via systematic review of eligible studies and random-effects meta-analysis. Main outcomes and measures The proportion of discrepancies between physician self-reported disclosures and objective payment data was the main outcome. The proportion of discrepant funds and factors associated with non-disclosure were also examined. Results 40 studies were included. The pooled proportion of COI discrepancies at the article level was 81% (range: 54%–98%; 95% CI 72% to 89%), 79% at the payment level (range: 71%–89%; 95% CI 67% to 89%), 93% at the authorship level (range: 71%–100%; 95% CI 79% to 100%) and 66% at the author level (range: 8%–99%; 95% CI 48% to 78%). The proportion of funds discrepant was 33% (range: 2%–77%; 95% CI 12% to 58%). There was high heterogeneity between studies across all five analyses (I2=94%–99%). Most undisclosed COI were related to food and beverage, or travel and lodging. While the most common explanation for failure to disclose was perceived irrelevance, a median of 45% of non-disclosed payments were directly or indirectly related to the work. A smaller monetary amount was the most common factor associated with nondisclosure. Conclusions Physician self-reports of financial COI are highly discrepant with objective data sources reporting payments from industry. Stronger policies are required to reduce reliance on physician self-reporting of financial COI and address non-compliance.

Project description:BackgroundFinancial conflicts of interest (FCOI) are known to be prevalent in medicine. Authorship of pivotal trials reap non-financial benefits including publication productivity that can be used for assessment of tenure positions and promotion. The purpose of this investigation was to quantify the prevalence and discordance of academic trial author (authors) FCOI in industry-sponsored drug trials that were initially presented as oral abstracts and subsequently resulted in a peer-reviewed publication.MethodsOral abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2017 Annual Meeting that were subsequently published were identified. Studies that were non-industry sponsored, non-adult, or non-therapeutic trials were excluded. Studies that did not have a subsequent peer-reviewed publication or had a publication preceding the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting were also excluded. FCOI was categorized and impact factor (IF) for the journal at the time of publication was retrieved. FCOI discordance between the oral abstract and publication was calculated based on geographic location and IF.ResultsA total of 22 paired abstract and publications met inclusion criteria for further analysis. A total of 384 authors were identified, of these 280 authors (74.1%) were included in both the oral abstract and subsequent publication. A total of 76% of these 280 authors had FCOI and 66.4% had FCOI discordance. There were statistically significant differences for the sum of FCOI discordance for U.S.-based authors (p = 0.0004) but not for journal IF. When analyzing the sum of absolute differences of FCOI discordance, statistical significance was reached for authors from any of the three geographic regions, as well as, low and high IF journals (all p-values < 0.0001).ConclusionsThis study draws attention to the lack of uniformity and vetting of FCOI reporting in abstracts and journals publishing solid tumor oncology trial results. This is particularly concerning, since FCOI is prevalent globally.

Project description:ImportanceClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are important in advancing the quality of medical care. Financial relationships between physicians and pharmaceutical companies may influence clinical practice. In accordance with the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association guidelines for transparency, pharmaceutical company payments to physicians have been disclosed since 2013. The distribution of pharmaceutical company payments among CPG authors in Japan has not been studied.ObjectivesTo determine the characteristics and distribution of payments made by pharmaceutical companies to authors of oncologic CPGs in Japan and to assess the transparency of policies associated with conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in CPGs.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study of 326 authors from 6 prominent oncologic CPGs from Japan included annual payment data for 2016 from 78 pharmaceutical companies during varying times from January 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresAmount and proportion of payments made by pharmaceutical companies to the authors; amount and proportion of payments made to the authors of each guideline; and information on policies for disclosing COIs in CPGs (Japanese yen were converted to US dollars based on the February 20, 2019 exchange rate of 110 yen per 1 US dollar).ResultsOf 326 eligible authors, 255 (78.2%) received payments from pharmaceutical companies in 2016. The total number of payments was 3947, and the total amount was $3 444 193 (¥378 861 220), including $2 696 777 for speaking, $181 944 for writing, $554 381 for consulting, and $11 091 for unclear fees. The median payment amount was $3233 (interquartile range [IQR], $506-$10 873), and the mean (SD) payment amount was $10 565 ($20 059); 84 authors (25.8%) received more than $10 000. The largest proportions of CPG authors receiving at least 1 payment were those for gastric carcinoma (92%) and colorectal carcinoma (92%). The median payment was highest for authors of colorectal carcinoma guidelines ($7781; IQR, $2506-$18 633), whereas it was lowest for authors of pancreatic carcinoma guidelines ($2207; IQR, $304-$9240). Only breast carcinoma CPGs published the authors' individual COI disclosure in an identifiable matter; guidelines for lung, colorectal, pancreatic, and hepatocellular carcinomas disclosed the financial relationships between the authors and companies anonymously; and the gastric carcinoma CPGs did not have a COI disclosure section.Conclusions and relevanceMost oncologic CPG authors received payments from pharmaceutical companies, and COI disclosure methods appeared to be insufficient. Given the possibility of bias in guideline content if authors have any financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, CPGs from Japan may require improved transparency.

Project description:BackgroundThe effects of clinical-trial funding on the interpretation of trial results are poorly understood. We examined how such support affects physicians' reactions to trials with a high, medium, or low level of methodologic rigor.MethodsWe presented 503 board-certified internists with abstracts that we designed describing clinical trials of three hypothetical drugs. The trials had high, medium, or low methodologic rigor, and each report included one of three support disclosures: funding from a pharmaceutical company, NIH funding, or none. For both factors studied (rigor and funding), one of the three possible variations was randomly selected for inclusion in the abstracts. Follow-up questions assessed the physicians' impressions of the trials' rigor, their confidence in the results, and their willingness to prescribe the drugs.ResultsThe 269 respondents (53.5% response rate) perceived the level of study rigor accurately. Physicians reported that they would be less willing to prescribe drugs tested in low-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.89; P=0.008) and would be more willing to prescribe drugs tested in high-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.18 to 4.32; P<0.001). Disclosure of industry funding, as compared with no disclosure of funding, led physicians to downgrade the rigor of a trial (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P=0.006), their confidence in the results (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98; P=0.04), and their willingness to prescribe the hypothetical drugs (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.94; P=0.02). Physicians were half as willing to prescribe drugs studied in industry-funded trials as they were to prescribe drugs studied in NIH-funded trials (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.71; P<0.001). These effects were consistent across all levels of methodologic rigor.ConclusionsPhysicians discriminate among trials of varying degrees of rigor, but industry sponsorship negatively influences their perception of methodologic quality and reduces their willingness to believe and act on trial findings, independently of the trial's quality. These effects may influence the translation of clinical research into practice.

Dataset Information

Financial disclosures of authors involved in spine research: an underestimated source of bias.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Financial disclosures of authors involved in spine research: an underestimated source of bias.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets